• 

III 


'  .'  • 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  SOCIETY  FOR  THE  COLLEGIATE  INSTRUCTION 

OF  WOMEN 

Fay  House  Monographs 

No.  3 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES 

(1619-1865) 


BY 
MARION   GLEASON    McDOUGALL 


PREPARED    UNDER     THE     DIRECTION     OF 


ALBERT    BUSHNELL    HART,   PH.  D. 

ASSISTANT    PROFESSOR    OF    HISTORY    IN    HARVARD    UNIVERSITY 


BOSTON,  U.S.A. 

PUBLISHED   BY   GINN   &   COMPANY 
1891 


Copyright,  1S91, 
BY  THE  SOCIETY  FOR  THE  COLLEGIATE  INSTRUCTION  OF  WOMEN. 


JOHN  WILSON  AND  SON,  CAMBRIDGE. 


EDITOR'S    PREFACE. 


EVERY  careful  student  of  history  is  aware  that  it  is  no  longer 
possible  to  write  the  general  history  of  any  important  country  from 
the  original  sources  ;  on  any  period,  the  materials  which  accumu 
late  in  a  year  are  more  than  can  be  assimilated  by  one  mind  in 
three  years.  The  general  historian  must  use  the  results  of  others' 
work.  It  is  therefore  essential  that  the  great  phases  of  political  and 
constitutional  development  be  treated  in  monographs,  each  devoted 
to  a  single,  limited  subject  and  each  prepared  on  a  careful  and 
scientific  method. 

This  first  number  of  the  historical  series  of  the  Fay  House 
Monographs  aims  to  discuss  the  single  topic  of  Fugitive  Slaves. 
Mrs.  McDougall  has  drawn  together  and  compared  many  cases 
found  in  obscure  sources,  and  has  perhaps  been  able  to  correct 
some  commonly  received  impressions  on  this  neglected  subject. 

Even  in  its  limited  range  this  does  not  pretend  to  be  a  complete 
work  in  the  sense  that  all  the  available  cases  are  discussed  or 
recorded.  The  effort  has  been  made  to  use  the  cases  as  illustra 
tions  of  principles,  and  to  add  such  bibliography  as  may  direct  the 
reader  to  further  details.  The  appendix  of  laws  is  as  full  as  it  was 
possible  to  make  it  from  the  collections  in  the  Boston  Public  and 
Massachusetts  State  Libraries.  If  the  monograph  prove  useful  to 
the  student  of  American  history,  it  will  jneet  the  expectations  of 
author  and  editor. 

ALBERT   BUSHNELL  HART. 

CAMBRIDGE,  April  2,  1891. 


[iii] 


AUTHOR'S   PREFACE. 


THE  following  monograph  was  written  while  the  author  was  a 
student  in  the  "  Harvard  Annex "  as  a  study  in  the  Seminary 
course  given  by  Professor  Albert  Bushnell  Hart.  The  work  has 
continued  during  parts  of  the  four  years  since  1887.  The  effort 
has  been  to  trace  in  some  measure  the  development  of  public  senti 
ment  upon  the  subject,  to  prepare  an  outline  of  Colonial  legislation 
and  of  the  work  of  Congress  during  the  entire  period,  and  to  give 
accounts  of  typical  cases  illustrative  of  conditions  and  opinions. 
Only  a  few  of  the  more  important  cases  are  described  minutely, 
but  a  critical  list  of  the  authorities  may  be  found  in  the  biblio 
graphical  appendix. 

The  thanks  of  the  author  are  due  first  to  Professor  Hart,  under 
whose  direction  and  with  whose  assistance  and  encouragement  the 
monograph  has  been  prepared ;  then  to  Miss  Anna  B.  Thompson, 
without  whose  careful  training  in  the  Thayer  Academy  and  con 
tinued  sympathy,  the  work  could  not  have  been  undertaken. 
Many  thanks  are  due  also  to  the  authorities  of  the  Library  of 
Harvard  College  for  the  use,  in  the  alcoves,  of  their  large  and  con 
veniently  arranged  collection  of  books  and  pamphlets  on  United 
States  History,  and  to  the  assistants  in  the  Boston  Public  and 
Massachusetts  State  Libraries  for  courteous  aid.  Colonel  T.  W. 
Higginson  has  kindly  examined  the  chapter  on  the  cases  .from 
1850  to  1860,  suggesting  ^ome  interesting  details;  and  Mr.  Arthur 
Oilman  has  read  the  whole  in  proof,  and  made  many  valuable 
suggestions. 

MARION    GLEASON    McDOUGALL. 

ROCKLAND,  MASS.,  April  2,  1891. 

[iv] 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

LEGISLATION  AND   CASES  BEFORE    THE   CONSTITUTION. 

PAGE 

§  i  Elements  of  colonial  slavery I 

§  2.  Regulations  as  to  fugitives  (1640-1700) 2 

§  ,3.  Treatment  of  fugitives 3 

§  4.  Regulations  in  New  England  colonies 4 

§  5.  Escapes  in  New  England  :  Attucks  case 5 

§  6.  Dutch  regulations  in  New  Netherlands 6 

§  7.  Escapes  from  New  Amsterdam 6 

§  8.  Intercolonial  regulations 7 

§  9.  Intercolonial  cases 8 

§  10.  International  relations 9 

§11.  International  cases , 10 

§  12.  Relations  with  the  mother  country 1 1 

§  13.  Regulation  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation  (1781-1788) 12 

§  14.  Ordinance  for  the  Northwest  Territory  (1787) 13 

§  15.  The  Fugitive  question  in  the  Constitutional  Conventions 14 


CHAPTER   II. 
LEGISLATION  FROM  1789    TO   1850. 

§  16.   Effect  of  the  fugitive  slave  clause  in  the  Constitution 16 

§  17.   The  first  Fugitive  Slave  Aot  (1793) 16 

§  18.    Discussion  of  the  first  act 18 

§  19.    Propositions  of  1797  and  1802 19 

§  20.    Propositions  from  1817  to  1822 21 

§  21.    Period  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  (1819-1822) 23 

§  22.    Status  of  the  question  from  1823  to  1847 24 

§  23.    Canada  and  Mexico  places  of  refuge 25 

§  24.    Status  of  fugitives  on  the  high  seas 26 

§  25.    Kidnapping  from  1793  to  1850  :  Prigg  case 27 

§  26.    Necessity  of  more  stringent  fugitive  slave  provisions 28 

§  27.    Action  of  Congress  from  1847  to  l85° 2§ 

§  28.    Slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia 29 

§  29.   The  second  Fugitive  Slave  Act  (1850) 29 

§  30.   Provisions  of  the  second  P'ugitive  Slave  Act 30 

§  31.    Arguments  for  the  bill 31 

§  32.    Arguments  against  the  bill 32 

[v] 


vi  Fugitive  Slaves. 


CHAPTER   III. 

PRINCIPAL   CASES  FROM  1789    TO  1860. 

PAGE 

§  33.  Change  in  character  of  cases 34 

§  34.  The  first  case  of  rescue  (1793) 35 

§  35.  President  Washington's  demand  for  a  fugitive  (1796) 35 

§  36.  Kidnapping  cases 36 

§  37.  Jones  case  ( 1836) 36 

§  38.  Solomon  Northup  case  (about  1830) 37 

§  39.  Washington  case  (between  1840  and  1850) 38 

§  40.  Oberlin  case  (1841) 38 

§  41.  Interference  and  rescues 38 

§  42.  Chickasaw  rescue  (1836) 38 

§  43.  Philadelphia  case  ( 1838) 39 

§  44.  Latimer  case  ( 1842) 39 

§  45.  Ottoman  case  ( 1846) 40 

§  46.  Interstate  relations 41 

§  47.  Boston  and  Isaac  cases  (1837,  1839) 41 

§  48.  Ohio  and  Kentucky  cases  (1848) 41 

§  49.  Prosecutions 42 

§  50.  Van  Zandt,  Pearl,  and  Walker  cases  ( 1840,  1844) 42 

§  51.    Unpopularity  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1850 43 

§  52.  Principle  of  the  selection  of  cases 43 

§  53.  Hamlet  case  (1850) 43 

§  54.  Sims  case  (1851) - 44 

§  55.  Burns  case  (1854) 45 

§  56.  Garner  case  ( 1856) 46 

§  57.  Shadrach  case  (1851) 47 

§  58.  Jerry  McHenry  case  ( 1851 ) 48 

§  59.  Oberlin- Wellington  case  (1858) 49 

§  60.  Christiana  case  (1851) 50 

§  61.  Miller  case  (1851) 51 

§  62.  John  Brown  in  Kansas  (1858) 51 


CHAPTER    IV. 
FUGITIVES  AArD   THEIR  FRIEATDS. 

§  63.  Methods  of  escape 53 

§  64.   Reasons  for  escape 54 

§  65.    Conditions  of  slave  life 55 

§  66.   Escapes  to  the  woods 56 

§  67.    Escapes  to  the  North 57 

§  68.    Use  of  protection  papers 58 

§  69.   Fugitives  disguised  as  whites :  Craft  case 58 


Contents.  vii 

PAGE 

§  70.  Underground  Railroad 60 

§  71.   Rise  and  growth  of  the  system 60 

§  72.   Methods  pursued 61 

§  73.    Colored  agents  of  the  Underground  Railroad 62 

§  74.    Prosecutions  of  agents 63 

§  75.   Formal  organization 63 

§  76.   General  effect  of  escapes 64 


CHAPTER   V. 
PERSONAL   LIBERTY  LAWS. 

§  77.  Character  of  the  personal  liberty  laws 65 

§  78.   Acts  passed  before  the  Prigg  decision  (1793-1842) 65 

§  79.   Acts  passed   between    the  Prigg  decision   and  the   second   Fugitive  Slave 

Law  ( 1842-1850) 66 

§  80.   Acts  occasioned  by  the  law  of  1850  (1850-1860) 66 

§  Si.   Massachusetts  acts 67 

§  82.    Review  of  the  acts  by  States 69 

§  83.   Effect  of  the  personal  liberty  laws 70 


CHAPTER   VI. 
THE  END   OF  THE- FUGITIVE   SLAVE    QUESTION  (1860-1865). 

§  85.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Law  in  the  crisis  of  1860-61 71 

§  86.  Proposition  to  enforce  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 72 

§  87.  Propositions  to  repeal  or  amend  the  law 73 

§  88.  The  question  of  slaves  of  rebels .• 73 

§  89.  Slavery  attacked  in  Congress 74 

§  90.  Confiscation  bills 75 

§  91.  Confiscation  provisions  extended 75 

§  92.  Effect  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  ( 1863) 77 

§  93.  Fugitives  in  loyal  slave  States 77 

§  94.  Typical  cases 78 

§  95-  Question  discussed  in  Congress 78 

§  96.  Arrests  by  civil  officers 80 

§  97.  Denial  of  the  use  of  jails  in  the  District  of  Columbia 80 

§  98.  Abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia 82 

§  99.  Regulations  against  kidnapping ?2 

§  100.  Repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Acts 83 

§  101.  Early  propositions  to  repeal  the  acts 83 

§  102.  ^Discussion  of  the  repeal  bill  in  the  House 84 

§  103.  Repeal  bills  in  the  Senate 85 

§  104.  The  repeal  act  and  the  thirteenth  amendment 86 

§  105.    Educating  effect  of  the  controversy 87 


viii  Fugitive  Slaves. 

APPENDICES. 

APPENDIX   A. 

PAGE 
Colonial  laws  relative  to  fugitives go 

APPENDIX   B. 
National  acts  and  propositions  relative  to  fugitive  slaves  (1778-1854) IO4 


APPENDIX    C. 

National  acts  and  propositions  relating  to  fugitive  slaves  (1860-1864) 

APPENDIX   D. 
List  of  important  fugitive  slave  cases 


APPENDIX   E. 


II? 


124 


Bibliography  of  fugitive  slave  cases  and  fugitive  slave  legislation I2g 


INDEX 

139 


CHAPTER    I. 

LEGISLATION  AND   CASES  BEFORE    THE 
CONSTITUTION. 

§    i.   Elements  of  colonial  slavery. 

§    2.    Regulations  as  to  fugitives  (1640-1700). 

§    3.   Treatment  of  fugitives. 

§    4.    Regulations  in  New  England  colonies. 

§  5.   Escapes  in  New  England :  Attucks  case. 
§    6.   Dutch  regulations  in  New  Netherlands. 

§  7.   Escapes  from  New  Amsterdam. 
§    8.    Intercolonial  regulations. 

§  9.    Intercolonial  cases. 
§  10.    International  relations. 

§11.   International  cases. 
§  12.    Relations  with  the  mother  country. 
§  13.   Regulation  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation  (1781-1788). 

§  14.   Ordinance  for  the  Northwest  Territory  (1787). 
§  15.   The  Fugitive  question  in  the  Constitutional  Conventions. 

§  I.  Elements  of  colonial  slavery. — By  the  middle  of  the  seven 
teenth  century,  the  settlements  made  in  America  by  the  English, 
Dutch,  and  Swedes  were  arranged  for  the  most  part  in  a  line 
of  little  colonies  closely  following  the  Atlantic  coast.  To  the 
west,  wide  forests  and  plains,  broken  only  by  the  paths  of  the 
Indian,  stretched  on  to  the  Pacific;  while  long  intervals  of  un 
populated  country  separated  the  colonists  on  the  north  from  the 
French  in  Canada,  and  on  the  south  from  the  Spaniards  in 
Florida. 

In  all  the  colonies  thus  grouped  together,  the  system  of  slavery 
had  already  become  well  established,  and  with  its  institution  the 
question  of  the  escape  and  return  of  the  slaves  had  necessarily 
arisen.  The  conditions  of  the  country,  both  physical  and  social, 
gave  unusual  facilities  for  flight.  The  wild  woods,  the  Indian  set 
tlements,  or  the  next  colony,  peopled  by  a  foreign  race,  and  per 
haps  as  yet  without  firmly  established  government,  offered  to  the 
slave  a  refuge  and  possibly  protection.  Escape,  therefore,  as  a 
peculiar  danger,  demanded  peculiar  remedies.  Though  it  is  the 
purpose  of  this  monograph  not  so  much  to  study  the  detail  of 


2  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Colonies.  (Ch  i. 

legislation  or  escape  in  the  colonies  as  to  deal  with  the  period 
trom  1789  to  1865,  a  slight  sketch  of  the  intercolonial  laws  and 
provisions  which  preceded  and  in  part  suggested  later  legislation 
will  first  be  necessary. 

Almost  immediately  after  the  introduction  of  slavery,  in  1619, 
we  begin  to  find  regulations  made  by  the  colonists  upon  this  sub 
ject.  At  first  they  applied  solely  to  their  own  territory,  but  soon 
agreements  were  entered  into  among  several  colonies,  or  between 
a  colony  and  the  Indians  or  the  French  in  Canada.  These  acts 
and  agreements  recognized  not  only  the  negro,  as  at  a  later  period, 
but  also  the  white  and  the  Indian  slave.  There  existed  in  some 
of  the  colonies  of  this  time  a  peculiar  class  of  white  people,  who 
received  no  wages,  and  were  bound  to  their  masters.1  Usually 
these  redemptioners  were  laborers  or  handicraftsmen,  but  some 
times  they  were  persons  of  education  who  had  committed  a  crime, 
and  were  sold  according  to  law  for  a  term  of  years,  or  for  life.  One 
of  the  class  is  curiously  connected  with  the  education  of  no  less  a 
person  than  George  Washington.  An  unpublished  autobiography 
of  the  Reverend  John  Boucher,  who  from  1760  to  the  Revolution 
was  a  teacher  and  preacher  in  Virginia,  contains  the  following 
paragraph  noticing  the  fact :  — 

"  Mr.  Washington  was  the  second  of  five  sons,  of  parents  dis 
tinguished  neither  for  their  rank  nor  fortune.  .  .  .  George,  who, 
like  most  people  thereabouts  at  that  time,  had  no  other  education 
than  reading,  writing,  and  accounts,  which  he  was  taught  by  a 
convict  servant  whom  his  father  bought  for  a  schoolmaster,  first 
set  out  in  the  world  as  a  surveyor  of  Orange  County."2 

§  2.  Regulations  as  to  fugitives.  —  The  earliest  regulation  upon 
this  subject  is  found  among  the  freedoms  and  exemptions  granted 
by  the  West  India  Company,  in  1629,  "to  all  Patroons,  Masters, 
or  Private  Persons  "  who  would  agree  to  settle  in  New  Netherlands. 
The  authorities  promised  to  do  all  in  their  power  to  return  to  their 
masters  any  slaves  or  colonists  fleeing  from  service.3 

A  little  later,  the  Swedish  colonists  in  Pennsylvania  asked 
from  their  government  the  same  privilege  of  reclaiming  fugitives.4 
The  preamble  of  an  act  against  fugitives  in  East  Jersey,  in  1686, 
explains  these  provisions.  They  found  that  "  the  securing  of  such 

1  Hurd,  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage,  I.  295. 

2  Nation,  April  18,  1889.  8  Appendix  A,  No.  i. 
4  N.  Y.  Colonial  Manuscripts,  XIII.  211. 


§§  i-3.]  Treatment  of  Fugitives.  3 

persons  as  Run  away,  or  otherwise  absent  themselves  from  their 
master's  lawfull  Occasion,"  was  "a  material  encouragement  to  such 
Persons  as  come  into  this  country  to  settle  Plantations  and  Popu 
late  the  Province."1  In  many  of  the  Southern  colonies,  as  Mary 
land  and  South  Carolina,  so  severe  were  the  acts  against  this  class 
of  bound  colonists  that  a  runaway  might  be  declared  outlawed, 
and  might  rightfully  be  killed  by  any  person.2 

§3.  Treatment  of  fugitives.  —  From  1640  to  1700,  laws  were 
also  passed  in  New  Jersey,  Maryland,  South  Carolina,  and  Virginia. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  follow  out  the  provisions  here,3  but  each 
of  the  Southern  colonies,  as  in  later  regulations,  provided  most 
minutely  for  all  possible  cases.  By  a  Virginia  law  of  1642,  all  per 
sons  who  entertained  runaways,  whether  slaves  or  hired  freemen, 
were  to  be  fined  twenty  pounds  of  tobacco  for  each  night's  hospi 
tality.  The  fugitives  were  to  add  to  their  tenure  of  service  double 
their  time  of  absence,  and  on  a  second  offence  to  be  branded  with 
the  letter  R4 

A  curious  regulation  in  1660-1,  in  Virginia,  provided  that  if 
a  negro  and  white  bound  servant  ran  away  together,  since  the 
necrro's  time  of  servitude  was  for  life,  and  he  was  therefore  inca- 

0  , 

pable  of  making  up  his  lost  time,  the  white  servant's  punishment 
should  be  doubled  by  adding  the  negro's  sentence  to  his  own.5 
Another  regulation,  entitled  "  How  to  Know  a  Runaway,"  com 
manded  that  all  recovered  fugitives  have  their  hair  "  cutt "  close 
about  their  ears.6 

Sometimes  the  penalties  were  even  more  severe,  but  the  pro 
cesses  were  much  the  same.  A  person  who  found  a  slave  or 
vagabond  without  a  pass  usually  took  him  before  the  next  justice, 
who  took  cognizance  of  the  captor's  good  service,  and  certified  it 
in  the  next  Assembly:  the  runaway  was  then  delivered  from  con 
stable  to  constable,  until  he  was  returned  to  his  master. 

After  1700  the  process  grows  yet  more  elaborate;  for  example, 
take  a  North  Carolina  law  of  1741.  The  securer  of  a  runaway 
was  to  have  seven  shillings  and  sixpence  proclamation  money, 
and  for  every  mile  over  ten  which  he  conducted  the  fugitive  three 
pence  extra.  When  seized,  runaways  were  to  be  whipped  and 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  45. 

2  Hurd,  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage,  I.  295. 

3  The  texts  will  be  found  post,  Appendix  A.  4  Appendix  A,  No.  6. 

6  Appendix  A,  No.  23.  6  Appendix  A,  No.  20. 


4  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Colonies.  [Ch.  i. 

placed  in  the  county  gaol.  If  the  owner  was  known,  he  was  notified 
and  went  for  his  slave ;  if  not,  a  notice  describing  the  runaway 
must  be  placed  upon  the  door  of  the  court-house,  and  sent  to 
the  clerk  or  reader  of  each  church  or  chapel  within  the  county. 
They  were  required  to  post  all  such  notices  every  Lord's  day  for 
two  months  in  some  convenient  place  near  the  church.  At  the 
end  of  this  time,  should  no  claimant  appear,  the  slave  must  be  sent 
from  constable  to  constable,  till  the  public  gaol  of  the  government 
was  reached.  There,  upon  consent  of  the  court  or  of  two  justices, 
he  might  be  sold  to  hire  by  the  gaoler.1  The  Maryland  Archives 
record  that  in  1669  ten  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco  were  appro 
priated  to  build  one  of  these  log-house  gaols  wherein  fugitive 
servants  might  be  lodged.2 

§  4.  Regulations  in  New  England  colonies.  —  Let  us  turn  now  to 
the  New  England  colonies.  Here  we  must  expect  to  find  but  few 
provisions,  since  the  class  of  slaves  and  bound  servants  was  so 
small  that  it  could  easily  be  controlled.  The  first  law  in  Massa 
chusetts  Bay  was  passed  in  1630,  and  was  entitled,  "  An  Act  re 
specting  Masters,  Servants,  and  Laborers."  In  accordance  with 
the  arbitrary  methods  of  government  then  pursued,  it  included  not 
only  runaway  servants,  but  also  any  persons  who  should  "  privily 
go  away  with  suspicion  of  evil  intention,"  and  ordered  the  magis 
trate  "  to  press  men,  boats,  or  pinnaces,"  and  "  to  bring  them  back 
by  force  of  arms."  A  humane  provision,  usually  wanting  in  South 
ern  laws,  though  also  found  in  New  Netherlands,  declared  that, 
whenever  servants  fled  on  account  of  the  tyranny  of  their  masters, 
they  should  be  protected  until  measures  for  their  relief  could  be 
taken.3 

In  Connecticut  and  New  Hampshire  similar  laws  were  passed, 
and  in  1707  Massachusetts  Bay,  in  regulating  the  free  negro 
population,  enacted  that  every  freeman  or  mulatto  who  should 
harbor  a  negro  servant  in  his  house  without  his  owner's  consent 
should  pay  five  shillings  for  the  use  of  the  poor  of  the  town.4 

In  those  days,  when  bridges  were  few,  the  ferrymen  were  ap 
parently  much  relied  upon  as  agents  to  detect  and  apprehend 
runaways.  In  1714  we  find  that  several  negro  slaves  had  been 
carried  over  ferries,  and  thus  escaped  out  of  Rhode  Island.  The 
Assembly  therefore  enacted  that  "  no  ferryman  or  boatman  what- 

1  Iredell,  90  ;  Appendix  A,  No.  73.  2  Maryland  Archives,  II.  224. 

3  Appendix  A,  No.  2.  4  Appendix  A,  No.  53. 


«s,_,i  Escapes  in  New  England.  5 

o«3  3    J'J 

oever,  within  this  colony,  shall  carry  or  bring  any  slave  as  afore 
said   over  their  ferries,  without  a  certificate   under  the  hands  c 
their  masters  or  mistresses,  or  some  person  in  authority,  upon  t 
penalty  of  paying   all  costs   and   damages  their  said   masters  or 
mistresses    shall    sustain   thereby:    and  to   pay  a  fine   of  twenty 
shillings  for  the  use  of  the  colony  for  each  offence,  as  aforesau 
All    persons  were   also   commanded    to   take   up   any  slave  they 
might  find  travelling  about  without  a  pass.1 

8  q     Escapes  in  New  England:    Attucks  case.- Although   we  do 
not  find  records  of  fugitive  slave  cases  tried  at  this  time  within 
the  New  England   colonies,   advertisements  of  runaways  exis 
sufficient  numbers  to  prove  that  escapes  were  common.     It  seems 
probable,  therefore,  that  the  return    of   a  slave  when  within   his 
own  colony  was  taken  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  roused  so  little 
opposition,  and   required  so  simple  a  process   at   law,  that  matters 
concerning  it  would  seldom  find  mention  in  the  chronicles  c 
time.     Here  is  a  typical  advertisement:  - 

•  «  Ran  away  from  Samuel  Gilbert  of  Littleton,  an  indentured  Servant  Boy, 
named  Samuel  Gilson,  about  17  years  old,  of  a  middling  Stature   for  1 
A*e  and  wears  black  curled  Hair,  he  carried  away  with  him  a  blue 
Coat    a  li-ht  colored  Jacket  with  sleeves,  one  pair  of  worsted  Stockings, 
two  striped  woolen  Shirts,  and  one  good  linnen  Shirt.     He  went  away  11 
company  with  a  short  thick  set  Fellow,  who  wore  a  green  coat  and  a  green 
Jacket  double  breasted,  also  a  pair  Indian  green  Stockings.     Whoever  shalJ 
take  up  and  secure,  or  give  information  of  said  runaway,  so  that  his  mastei 
may  find  him  again,  shall  receive  a  Reward  of  two  dollars  and  all  neces 
sary  charges  from  SAMUEL  GILBERT. 
«  All  masters  of  vessels  and  others  are  cautioned  against  harboring,"  etc.2 

Again  a  case  interesting  not  only  as  an  illustration  of  the 
customs  of  the  time,  but  also  because  the  fugitive  himsetf  bears 
a  name  known  to  history  in  another  connection,  is  noticed  in  the 
Boston  Gazette  of  1750.  Here  is  advertised  as  escaping,  Octo 
ber  2,  1750,  from  his  master,  William  Browne  of  Framingham, 
Massachusetts,  "  A  molatto  fellow  about  twenty-seven  years  of 
age,  named  Crispus."  After  describing  his  clothing  and  appear 
ance,  a  reward  of  ten  pounds,  old  tenor,  is  offered  for  his  return, 
and  "all  masters  of  vessels  and  others  are  cautioned  against 

i  Appendix  A,  No.  57  ;  Appendix  D,  No.  6.  2  Boston  Gazette,  Jan.  I,  1770. 


6  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Colonies.  [Ch.  \. 

concealing  said  servant  on  penalty  of  law." 1  Tradition  has  it, 
however,  that  he  was  never  arrested,  but  returned  of  his  own 
accord  after  a  short  time,  and  was  for  the  next  twenty  years  a 
faithful  servant.2.  Then,  in  1770,  presumably  while  in  town  upon 
one  of  the  expeditions  he  often  undertook  to  buy  and  sell  cattle 
for  his  master,  he  was  drawn  into  the  Boston  Massacre  of 
March  5/3 

A  somewhat  famous  case,  which  also  occurred  in  Massachusetts, 
though  many  years  later,  may  here  be  mentioned.  About  1769, 
one  Rotch,  a  Quaker,  and  therefore  probably  opposed  to  slavery, 
received  on  board  the  whaler  Friendship  a  young  negro  boy 
named  Boston,  belonging  to  the  heirs  of  William  Swain.  At  the 
end  of  the  voyage  his  master,  John  Swain,  brought  action  in  the 
court  of  Nantucket  against  Captain  Folger  for  the  recovery  of 
the  slave;  the  jury,  whether  from  lack  of  evidence  or  from 
sympathy  cannot  be  determined,  returned  a  verdict  in  favor  of 
the  defendant.4 

§  6.  Dutch  regulations  in  New  Netherlands.  —  The  early  New 
Netherlands  regulations  furnish  many  interesting  provisions  con 
cerning  fugitive  servants.  Apparently  the  servile  class  was  nu 
merous,  and  hard  to  govern.  In  the  words  of  the  ordinance  of 
1640,  "  many  servants  daily  run  away  from  their  masters,  whereby 
the  latter  are  put  to  great  inconvenience  and  expense  ;  the  corn 
and  tobacco  rot  in  the  field,  and  the  whole  harvest  is  at  a  standstill, 
which  tends  to  the  serious  injury  of  this  country,  to  their  masters' 
ruin,  and  to  bring  the  magistracy  into  contempt."  It  was  there 
fore  ordained  that  runaways  must,  at  the  end  of  their  term  of  in 
denture,  serve  double  the  time  of  their  absence,  and  make  good 
all  loss  and  damage  to  their  masters;  while  persons  harboring 
fugitives  were  obliged  to  pay  a  fine  of  fifty  guilders.5 

§  7.  Escapes  from  New  Amsterdam.  —  Within  these  Dutch  colonies 
there  is  recorded  a  case  of  escape  as  early  as  1659.  Four  men- 
servants  of  Cornells  Kcrpcrts  de  Jager,  of  New  Amsterdam,  ran 
away  to  Manhattan.  One  of  them  soon  returned,  and  in  accord 
ance  with  the  regulation  made  in  1630  by  the  \Vest  India  Com- 

1  Boston  Gazette,  Oct.  2,  1750;    G.  W.  Williams,  History  of  the  Negro  Race  in 
America,  I.  330. 

2  Liberator,  March  16,  1860. 

8  W.  C.  Nell's  Address  at  the  Nineteenth  Anniversary  of  Boston  Massacre. 

4  Moore,  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  117. 

5  Appendix  A,  No  3 ;  Appendix  D,  No.  10. 


§§  5-8.]  DutcJi  and  Intercolonial  Regitlations.  7 

pany,1  requiring  the  return  of  fugitives  in  their  various  settlements, 
one  of  the  officers  of  the  colony  sent  to  Manhattan  an  order  to 
arrest  and  bring  back  the  remaining  three  in  chains.2 

§  8.  Intercolonial  regulations.  —  It  will  be  seen  that  most  of  the 
colonies  considered  some  provision  against  runaways  necessary 
to  the  welfare  of  the  settlements.  To  secure  such  legislation  in 
a  single  colony  was  a  comparatively  easy  matter;  but  the  un 
organized  and  sparsely  settled  condition  of  the  country  rendered 
any  intercolonial  regulations  difficult. 

The  first  formal  agreement  of  this  kind  was  arranged  by  the 
New  England  Confederation  of  Plymouth,  Massachusetts,  Con 
necticut,  and  New  Haven,  in  1643.  In  their  Articles  of  Confeder 
ation  was  a  clause  which  promised :  "  If  any  servant  runn  away 
from  his  master  into  any  other  of  these  confederated  Jurisdiccons, 
That  in  such  Case  vpon  the  Certyficate  of  one  Majistrate  in  the 
Jurisdiccon  out  of  which  the  said  servant  fled,  or  upon  other  due 
proofe,  the  said  servant  shall  be  deliuered  either  to  his  Master  or 
any  other  that  pursues  and  brings  such  Certificate  or  proofe."3 
This  clause  contains  the  earliest  statement  of  the  principles  re 
garding  the  treatment  of  fugitive  slave  cases,  afterward  carried 
out  in  the  United  States  statutes  of  1787,  1793,  and  1850.  There 
was  no  trial  by  jury,  but  the  certificate  of  a  magistrate  was 
sufficient  evidence  to  convict  the  runaway. 

It  is  probable,  also,  that  the  rendition  of  fugitives  was  con 
sidered  a  duty  incumbent  upon  all  colonies,  whatever  their  rela 
tion  to  each  other,  since  about  this  time  we  find  an  agreement 
made  for  the  mutual  surrender  of  fugitives  between  the  Dutch 
at  New  Netherlands  and  the  English  at  New  Haven.4 

Not  only  did  the  slaves  of  the  Dutch  escape  to  the  English 
colonies,  but  they  often  fled  to  the  forests,  where  recovery  must 
have  been  almost  impossible  unless  the  Indians  could  be  induced 
to  hunt  them  out.  Curious  rewards  were  sometimes  offered. 
Maryland,  in  1669,  ordered  that  any  Indian  who  shall  apprehend  a 
fugitive  may  have  a  "  match  coate,"  or  its  value.5  Virginia  would 

1  See  ante,  §  2. 

2  N.  Y.  Colonial  Manuscripts,  XIII.  238 ;   Letter  from  Jacob  Aldrich  to  Director 
Stuyvesant  of  New  Netherlands,  New  Amstel,  14  May,  1659;   Documentary  History 
of  N.  Y.  Colony,  II.  556 ;  Appendix  D,  No.  2. 

3  Appendix  A,  No.  8  ,  Oilman,  History  of  the  American  People,  605. 

4  N.  Y.  Colonial  Manuscripts,  I.  342 ;  Doyle,  English  in  America,  I.  391. 
8  Maryland  Archives,  II.  523. 


Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Colonies.  [Ch.  i. 

give  "  20  armes  length  of  Roanoke,"  or  its  value,1  while  in 
Connecticut  "two  yards  of  cloth"  was  considered  sufficient  in 
ducement.2  We  have  record  of  several  conferences  upon  this 
subject.  Governor  Burnett  of  New  York  asked  his  Indians  to 
exert  themselves  in  behalf  of  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  who  had 
written  to  him  about  the  escape  of  several  of  his  negro  servants  to 
the  mountains.  The  Indians  promised  their  help  in  this  and  any 
other  search;  but  as  they  seldom  seem  to  have  succeeded,  it  is 
probable  that  their  sympathy  was  with  the  fugitives.3  Again 
Governor  Burnett  demanded  the  restoration  of  a  certain  Indian 
slave  whom  they  had  kidnapped  from  the  English.  The  Indians 
acknowledged  the  fact,  but  they  said  that  he  was  then  sold  to 
others,  and  nothing  further  could  be  done.4 

Canada  even  in  these  early  times  seems  also  to  have  been  a 
haven  for  fugitives.  In  1705  New  York  passed  an  act,  which  was 
renewed  in  1715,  to  prevent  slaves  running  away  from  frontier 
towns  like  Albany  to  Canada,  because  it  was  of  great  importance, 
they  said,  in  time  of  war,  "  that  no  Intelligence  be  carried  from 
the  said  city  and  county  to  the  French  in  Canada."5 

During  all  this  time  the  Southern  colonies,  especially  the 
Carolinas  and  Georgia,  were  also  making  many  complaints  in 
regard  to  the  difficulty  they  had  in  recovering  the  fugitives, 
both  Indian  and  negro,  who  were  escaping  in  large  numbers 
into  Florida.  There,  among  the  Creek  Indians  and  the  Spanish 
at  St.  Augustine,  they  easily  found  refuge.6  This  difficulty  was, 
however,  not  remedied  in  colonial  times,  but  continued  long  after 
the  formation  of  the  Federal  Union,  and  in  fact  until  the  close 
of  the  Seminole  war,  in  1845. 

§  9.  Intercolonial  cases.  — When,  as  was  often  the  case,  no  agree 
ment  upon  the  return  of  fugitives  had  been  arranged  between  the 
colonies,  the  rendition  of  a  slave  depended  wholly  upon  the 
state  of  feeling  existing  between  the  two  peoples,  and  sometimes 
became  an  important  question.  Between  the  New  England 
colonies  no  cases  have  been  found  recorded,  although  we  infer 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  37. 

2  Acts  and  Laws  of  Connecticut,  229. 

3  N.  Y.  Colonial  Manuscripts,  V.  637 ;  Appendix  D,  No.  4. 
*  N.  Y.  Colonial  Manuscripts,  V.  793. 

5  Appendix  A,  Nos.  50,  59. 

6  Giddings,  Exiles   of  Florida,   281  ;    Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power 
in  America,  I,  122. 


§§8-io.]  Intercolonial  Cases.  9 

that  there  must  have  been  reason  for  the  insertion  of  a  fugitive 
slave  clause  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  of  I643.1 

Of  other  early  cases  one  of  the  most  interesting  is  the  escape 
from  Virginia  of  four  Englishmen  belonging  to  the  class  of 
bound  servants.  They  rowed  in  a  small  boat  up  the  coast  as  far 
as  Cape  May,  where  they  landed.2  They  soon  found  themselves 
objects  of  suspicion  with  the  people,  and,  as  was  a  common  prac 
tice,  took  refuge  among  the  Indians.  About  a  year  afterward 
their  masters  tracked  them  to  their  place  of  refuge,  and  captured 
two  of  them,  but  the  others  were  again  beyond  reach.  The  In 
dians,  who  evidently  did  not  always  befriend  runaways,  had  just 
sold  one  of  them,  William  Browne,  to  a  Swede,  and  Browne, 
learning  of  his  former  master's  appearance,  had  found  oppor 
tunity  to  escape.  The  fourth  of  the  fugitives  was  still  among  the 
Mantas,  and  could  not  be  secured.  Of  the  two  recaptured,  one 
was  returned  without  trouble,  but  the  other,  Turc,  who  had  just 
entered  the  service  of  a  certain  Pieter  Aldrich,  resisted  his  captors. 
A  struggle  took  place  upon  the  boat  in  which  they  were  carrying 
him  away.  After  wounding  three  of  his  guards,  he  succeeded 
in  making  his  escape,  only  to  be  recaptured  almost  immediately. 
When  tried  for  the  deed  at  New  Amsterdam,  he  received  a  death 
sentence.3  In  this  case,  one  of  the  most  complete  in  detail  left 
to  us,  may  be  found,  in  the  incidents  of  escape,  pursuit,  resistance, 
and  final  rendition,  all  the  features  of  the  later  fugitive  slave  cases. 
It  is  also  an  example  wherein  the  laws  of  the  period,  which  re 
quired  the  rendition  of  a  bound  white  man  in  the  same  manner  as 
a  negro  slave,  were  strictly  carried  out:  and  in  the  diverse  fates 
of  the  four  men  we  find  instances  probably  typical  of  the  fortunes 
of  most  fugitives  of  the  time. 

§  10.  International  relations.  —  The  proximity  of  the  French, 
Spanish,  and  Dutch  settlements  led  to  escapes  from  the  colonies 
of  one  power  into  those  of  another.  All  were  slaveholding  com 
munities,  and  there  was  no  disposition  to  shield  a  slave  because 
his  lot  was  a  hard  one ;  but  the  distrust  and  enmity  between  neigh 
boring  colonies  owing  allegiance  to  different  sovereigns  caused 
such  escapes  to  lead  to  petty  quarrels.  There  was  no  system  of 
extradition  treaties;  in  fact,  there  was  as  yet  little  international 

1  Ante,  §  8. 

2  Letter  from  William  Beekman  to  Director  Stuyvesant,  in  N.  Y.  Colonial  Manu 
scripts,  XIII.  346;  Appendix  D,  No.  3. 

3  N.  Y.  Colonial  Manuscripts,  XIII.  346. 

^         OF   THK 

UNIVERSITY 


io  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Colonies.  [Ch.  i. 

law.  Fugitives  were  demanded  as  an  act  of  comity,  and  some 
times  their  delivery  was  refused.  It  was  hardly  a  subject  on 
which  the  home  governments  bestirred  themselves.  The  colonies 
were  left  to  make  their  own  agreements,  or  to  settle  their  own 
disagreements. 

§  ii.  International  cases.  —  Thus  far  only  those  cases  have  been 
noticed  which  arose  within  and  between  colonies  of  the  same 
nation.  Let  us  now  consider  a  very  early  case  of  disagreement 
between  colonies  of  different  nations,  which  occurred  in  1646. 
The  commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  made  complaint  to 
the  Governor  of  New  Netherlands  that  his  Dutch  agent  at  Hart 
ford  was  harboring  one  of  their  Indian  slaves.  Soon  after,  Gov 
ernor  Stuyvesant  was  refused  the  return  of  some  of  his  runaway 
servants  from  New  Haven.  Thereupon  the  angry  Lords  of  the 
West  India  Company  issued  a  proclamation  commanding  that 
there  should  be  no  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves  to  New  Haven. 
This  provision  continued  in  effect  until  Governor  Elton  sent  back 
some  of  the  fugitives  to  New  Netherlands.  It  was  then  annulled, 
and  a  mutual  agreement  to  return  the  runaways  was  entered  into 
by  the  United  Colonies  and  the  Dutch.1  Governor  John  Win- 
throp,  in  his  History  of  New  England,  refers  to  the  case,  and  says 
that  Massachusetts  Bay  endeavored  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation, 
and  wrote  to  the  Governor  of  New  Netherlands  intimating  to  him 
that  "  at  their  request  he  might  send  back  the  fugitives  without 
prejudice  to  their  right  or  reputation."2 

Maryland  also  found  difficulty,  from  the  readiness  with  which 
her  servants  could  flee  north  to  New  Netherlands.  In  the  State 
Archives  may  be  found  a  letter  sent  by  the  authorities  to  the 
Governor  of  New  Netherlands,  as  follows :  — 

"  SIR,  —  Some  servants  being  lately  fledd  out  of  this  colony,  into  yours, 
as  is  supposed,  we  could  not  promise  orselves  from  you  that  justice  £  faire 
correspondence  betweene  the  two  governments  so  neerly  bordering  &  wch 
are  shortly  like  to  be  nearer  neighbors  in  delaware  bay,  as  to  hope  that 
vpon  the  receiving  of  these  Ortres  &  the  demand  of  the  p'ties  interessted 
you  will  remand  to  us  all  such  apprentice  servants  as  are  or  shall  run  out  of 
this  government  into  yours ;  and  will  compell  such  other  p'sons,  as  shall 
flic  to  you  without  a  passe,  being  indebted  or  otherwise  obnoxious  to  the 

1  Moore,  Notes  on  the   History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  28 ;  Doyle,  English 
in  America,  I.  391  ;  compare  Appendix  A,  No.  14. 

2  John  Winthrop,  History  of  New  England  from  1630  to  1649,  p.  383;  Appendix  D, 
No.  i. 


§§  io-i2.]  International  Cases.  n 

justice  of  this  place,  to  make  such  satisfaction  to  the  parties  endamaged  by 
their  unlawful  departure,  upon  their  complaints  and  proofe  thereof,  as  you 
shall  find  justice  to  require.  And  you  may  promise  yourself  the  like  helpe 
and  concurrence  from  this  governm't  in  that  or  any  other  thing  as  shalbe  in 
the  power  of  it :  And  so  we  bid  you  heartilly  farewell  &  rest. 
"  To  the  hode  the  Governor  of  the  New  Netherlands." 1 

In  1659  the  Dutch  had  occasion  to  ask  the  same  favor  of  Mary 
land.  Whether  there  had  been  trouble  between  the  colonies  since 
the  earlier  letter  we  do  not  know,  but  the  spirit  of  the  communica 
tion  was  quite  different.  Instead  of  assurances  of  good  will,  and 
expressions  of  a  belief  in  the  certainty  of  peaceful  return,  the 
Dutch  threatened,  if  their  servants  were  not  secured  to  them, 
"  to  publish  free  liberty,  access  and  recess  to  all  planters,  ser 
vants,  negroes,  fugitives,  and  runaways  which  may  go  into  New 
Netherland."  2 

Trouble  was  also  constantly  arising  between  the  French  and 
English,  or  French  and  Dutch,  in  regard  to  the  many  runaways 
who  fled  from  the  Eastern  colonies  northward  to  Canada.  In 
175°  there  was  a  dispute  about  a  certain  negro  belonging  to  the 
English,  but  at  that  time  in  possession  of  the  Sieur  de  la  Corne 
St.  Luc;  and,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  one  of  the  officers  of  the 
colony  makes  the  following  explanation  concerning  them :  "  In 
regard  to  the  negro  in  possession  of  Sieur  de  la  Corne  St.  Luc  I 
thought  proper  not  to  send  him  back  every  negro  being  a  slave 
wherever  he  be.  Besides,  I  am  only  doing  what  the  English  did 
in  1747.  Ensign  de  Malbronne  on  board  Le  Screux  had  a  negro 
servant  who  was  at  first  taken  from  him ;  I  took  pains  to  reclaim 
him,  but  the  English  refused  to  surrender  him  on  ground  as 
above."  3 

§  12.  Relations  with  the  mother  country.  —  With  only  one  country 
across  the  sea  was  any  question  of  fugitives  likely  to  arise.  In 
England  white  slavery  had  long  since  died  out,  except  as  a  pun 
ishment  for  crime;  villeinage  ceased  about  the  time  the  colonies 
were  settled.  But  the  status  of  black  slaves  who  were  taken 
from  the  colonies  to  England  was  in  practice  unchanged. 

The  principle  thus  apparently  established  by  custom  was  over 
thrown  by  a  succession  of  legal  decisions,  culminating  in  the 

1  Archives  of  Maryland,  Proceedings  of  Council,  1636-1667,  pp.  134,  135. 

2  Archives  of  Maryland,  Proceedings  of  Council,  III.  472. 

3  Letter  from  M.  de  la  Jonquiere  to  M.  de  Rouille,  in  N.  Y.  Colonial  Manuscripts, 
X.  209;  Appendix  D,  No.  5. 


12  Fugitive  Slaves  : — Colonies.  [Ch.i. 

famous  Somersett  Case.  It  was  first  decided  by  Thomas  Gra- 
hame,  judge  in  the  Admiralty  Court,  Glasgow,  that  a  certain  negro 
who  had  been  brought  into  Great  Britain  must  be  liberated,  on 
the  ground  that  a  guiltless  human  being  taken  into  that  country 
must  be  free.1  In  1762  occurred  another  similar  case.  A  bill  had 
been  filed  in  equity  by  an  administrator  to  recover  money  given 
by  his  intestate  to  a  negro  brought  to  England  as  a  slave.  The 
suit  was  dismissed  by  Lord  Northington,  who  said  that  as  soon 
as  a  man  set  foot  on  English  ground  he  was  free.2 

The  Somersett  case  came  ten  years  later.  The  circumstances 
were  as  follows.  A  Mr.  Stewart,  accompanied  by  his  slave 
Somersett,  left  Boston  on  the  1st  of  October,  1/69,  and  went  to 
London,  where  he  kept  his  slave  until  October  I,  1771.  Then 
Somersett  ran  away,  but  his  owner  soon  secured  him  and  had  him 
placed  on  board  a  vessel  bound  for  Jamaica,  probably  with  the 
intention  of  selling  him  as  a  slave.  A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was 
then  served  upon  the  captain  of  the  ship,  and  on  the  hearing 
Lord  Mansfield  decided  that  Somersett  must  be  discharged.  In 

o 

England,  he  said,  slavery  could  exist  only  by  positive  law ;  and 
in  default  of  such  law  there  was  no  legal  machinery  for  depriving 
a  man  of  his  liberty  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  slave.  The 
importance  of  the  case  for  the  colonies  lay  not  in  the  assertion 
of  the  principle  that  slavery  depended  on  positive  law,  for  the 
American  statute-books  were  full  of  positive  law  on  slavery ;  the 
precedent  thus  established  determined  the  future  course  of  Eng 
land  against  the  delivery  of  fugitives,  whether  from  her  colonies 
or  from  other  countries.3 

§  13.  International  regulations  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
(1781-1788).  —  When,  on  March  I,  1781,  the  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion  went  into  effect,  the  only  action  taken  by  the  United  States 
on  the  subject  of  fugitives  had  been  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty 
with  the  Delaware  Indians,  August  7,  1778,  by  which  the  parties 
bound  themselves  not  "  to  protect  in  their  respective  States 
criminal  fugitives,  servants,  or  slaves,  but  the  same  to  apprehend, 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  Third  Series,  IX.  2 ;  Appendix  D, 
No.  7. 

a  T-  Quincy,  Reports  of  Cases,  96  ;  Appendix  D,  No.  8. 

3  Moore,  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  117  ;  T.  R.  Cobb,  Historical  Sketch  of  Slavery, 
2,  Law  of  Negro  Slavery,  164;  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  Third 
Series,  IX.  2  ;  Josiah  Quincy,  Reports  of  Cases,  96  ;  Hurd,  Law  of  Freedom  and 
Bondage,  II. 


§§12-14.]  English  Law.     Northwest  Ordinance.  13 

secure,  and  deliver."  1  In  seven  of  the  eight  other  treaties  nego 
tiated  with  Indian  tribes  from  1784  to  1786,  clauses  were  intro 
duced  for  the  return  of  black  prisoners,  or  of  "  negroes  and  other 
property."  2  The  States  affected  were  chiefly  Southern ;  but  the 
article  on  the  same  subject  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  in  1782  and 
1783,  was  intended  as  much  to  protect  the  slaveholders  of  New 
York  as  those  of  Virginia.  It  was  distinctly  agreed  that  the 
British  should  not  carry  away  "  any  negroes  or  other  property."  { 
The  failure  to  abide  by  this  agreement  led  to  reclamation  by  the 
American  government,  but  no  indemnity  was  ever  secured.4 

§  14.  Ordinance  for  the  Northwest  Territory.  —  Since  all  the  thir 
teen  colonies  recognized  slavery,  the  Revolution  made  no  differ 
ence  in  any  previous  intercolonial  practice  as  to  the  delivery  of 
slaves ;  in  framing  the  Articles  of  Confederation  no  clause  on  the 
'subject  was  thought  necessary.  The  precedent  of  the  New  Eng 
land  Confederation  was  forgotten  or  ignored.  But  the  action  of 
the  States  of  Vermont,  Pennsylvania,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut, 
and  Rhode  Island,  in  taking  steps  toward  immediate  or  gradual 
emancipation,  from  1777  to  1784,  brought  up  a  new  question, — 
the  status  of  fugitives  in  free  regions.  Before  the  change  of  con 
ditions  in  the  States  was  completely  understood,  the  same  question 
had  arisen  in  the  Western  territories.  Jefferson,  in  1784,  proposed 
to  draw  a  north  and  south  line  through  the  mouth  of  the  Kanawha, 
west  of  which  there  should  be  no  slavery  after  iSoo.5  The  next 
year  a  Northern  man  proposed  a  similar  limitation  in  the  territory 
north  of  the  Ohio,  and  added  a  clause  for  the  return  of  fugitive 
slaves  to  the  original  slave  States.6  Neither  of  these  two  propo 
sitions  was  carried,  but  the  principles  both  of  exclusion  of  slavery 
and  of  the  return  of  fugitives  appear  in  the  Northwest  Ordinance 
of  1787,  the  first  legislation  by  Congress  looking  toward  the  sur 
render  of  fugitives  by  any  Territory  or  State.  In  providing  a 
government  for  the  new  Territory,  it  was  enacted,  July  13,  1787, 
that  "  any  person  escaping  into  the  same  from  whom  labor  or 
service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  one  of  the  original  States, 
such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the 

1  Appendix  B,  No.  i.  2  Appendix  B,  Nos.  3,  5. 

3  Appendix  B,  No.  2.  4  Post,  §  22. 

5  Randall,   Jefferson,  I.   397-400;    Winsor,  VII.  528;   Journals  of  Congress,  IX. 
153-156. 

6  Appendix  B,  No.  4;  Journals  of  Congress,  X.  79;  Bancroft,  History  of  the  U.  S. 
(last  rev.),  VI.  132-134;  Bancroft,  Constitution,  I.  178-180;  Hildreth,  III.  458. 


14  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Colonies.  [Ch.  i. 

person  claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid."  •  The 
fugitive  clause  seems  to  have  -provoked  no  discussion,  but  to  have 
been  accepted  as  a  reasonable  condition  of  the  limitation  ot 
slavery. 

§  15.  The  Fugitive  question  in  the  Constitutional  Conventions. — 
While  the  Northwest  Ordinance  was  passing  through  Congress, 
the  Philadelphia  Convention  was  framing  a  new  Constitution,  and 
the  return  of  fugitives  was  again  eagerly  insisted  upon  by  the  slave 
States.  The  necessity  of  some  positive  stipulation  that  fugitives 
should  be  returned  was  felt  to  be  even  more  necessary  in  a  Consti 
tution  meant  permanently  to  bind  together  a  free  and  a  slavchold- 
ing  section.  The  only  debate  of  which  we  have  a  record  occurred 
August  28,  1787.  Mr.  Butler  of  North  Carolina  pressed  the  point 
in  behalf  of  the  Southern  States.  To  his  first  proposition,  "that 
fugitive  slaves  and  servants  be  delivered  up  like  criminals,"2  Mr. 
Wilson  objected ;  he  saw  no  reason  for  obliging  the  state  to 
arrest  fugitives  at  public  expense,  while  Mr.  Sherman  saw  no 
more  propriety  in  the  public  seizing  and  surrendering  a  slave  or 
servant  than  a  horse.3  Mr.  Butler  therefore  withdrew  the  propo 
sition.  He  soon  introduced  a  more  particular  provision,  which 
was  accepted  and  inserted  in  the  Constitution,  as  follows :  - 

"  NO  PERSON  HELD  TO  SERVICE  OR  LABOUR  IN  ONE  STATE, 
UNDER  THE  LAWS  THEREOF,  ESCAPING  INTO  ANOTHER,  SHALL, 
IN  CONSEQUENCE  OF  ANY  LAW  OR  REGULATION  THEREIN,  BE 
DISCHARGED  FROM  SUCH  SERVICE  OR  LABOUR,  BUT  SHALL  BE 

DELIVERED  UP  ON  CLAIM  OF  THE  PARTY  TO  WHOM  SUCH  SER 
VICE  OR  LABOUR  MAY  BE  DUE."4 

In  the  various  Constitutional  Conventions,  there  was  little  dis 
cussion  upon  the  matter.  The  Southern  States  in  general  con 
sidered  the  clause  sufficient  to  protect  their  property.  General 
Charles  C.  Pinckney,  in  South  Carolina,  said:  "  We  have  obtained 
the  right  to  recover  our  slaves  in  whatever  part  of  America  they 
may  take  refuge,  which  is  a  right  we  have  not  had  before.  In 
short,  considering  all  circumstances,  we  have  made  the  best 
terms  for  the  security  of  this  species  of  property  it  was  in  em 
power  to  make.  We  would  have  made  better  if  we  could,  but  on 

1  Appendix  B,  No.  6.  On  the  Northwest  Ordinance  in  general,  see  Winsor,  VII. 
.538;  J.  H.  Merriam,  Legislative  History  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  (Worcester,  1888); 
Lalor's  Cyclopaedia,  III.  30-34. 

a  Elliot's  Debates,  V.  487.  8  Ibid.,  V.  487. 

4  Appendix  B,  No.  7. 


§§  M-IS-]     Fugitive  Question  in  Constitutional  Conventions.  15 

the  whole  I  do  not  think  them  bad."1  In  North  Carolina,  Mr. 
Iredell  explained  to  the  Convention  that  the  Northern  delegates, 
owing  to  their  peculiar  scruples  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  did  not 
choose  the  word  "  slave  "  to  be  mentioned ;  but  since  the  present 
laws  were  so  prejudicial  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  Southern  States, 
some  such  clause  was  necessary.2  In  Virginia,  Mr.  Grayson  dis 
cussed  the  provision  giving  Congress  exclusive  legislation  over 
ten  square  miles  surrounding  the  capital.  It  seemed  to  him  that, 
unless  the  ten  miles  square  be  considered  a  State,  "  persons  bound 
to  labor  who  shall  escape  thereto  will  not  be  given  up.  For  they 
are  only  to  be  delivered  up  after  they  shall  have  escaped  into  a 
State."  3  •  This  objection,  though  perfectly  good  at  the  time,  was 
later  overcome  by  the  adoption  by  Congress  of  the  laws  of  Mary 
land  for  the  regulation  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  whereby  it 
was  made  slave  territory.  Mr.  Mason  did  not  think  the  clause 
provided  sufficiently  for  the  protection  of  their  slaves,4  but  Mr. 
Madison  urged  its  adoption,  as  a  better  security  than  anything 
they  then  had.5 

In  the  North,  there  was  apparently  no  discussion  upon  this 
article.  Everywhere,  however,  it  was  thought  that  without  such  a 
clause  the  Southern  States  would  not  consent  to  the  Union,  and, 
in  a  spirit  of  compromise,  the  provision  was  accepted. 

i  Elliot's  Debates,  III.  277.  ^  Ibid.,  III.  182.  8  Ibid.,  III.  401. 

*  Ibid.,  III.  428.  *  Ibjd.,  III.  335. 


CHAPTER    II. 

LEGISLATION  FROM  1789    TO    1850. 

§  16.   Effect  of  the  fugitive  slave  clause  in  the  Constitution. 
§  17.   The  first  Fugitive  Slave  Act  (1793). 

§  1 8.    Discussion  of  the  first  act. 
§  19.    Propositions  of  1797  and  1802. 
§  20.    Propositions  from  1817  to  1822. 
§  21.    Period  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  (1819-1822). 
§  22.    Status  of  the  question  from  1823  to  1847. 

§  23.   Canada  and  Mexico  places  of  refuge. 

§  24.    Status  of  fugitives  on  the  high  seas. 
§  25.    Kidnapping  from  1793  to  1850  :  Prigg  case. 
§  26.   Necessity  of  more  stringent  fugitive  slave  provisions. 
§  27.    Action  of  Congress  from  1847  to  1850. 
§  28.    Slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
§  29.   The  second  Fugitive  Slave  Act  (1850). 

§  30.    Provisions  of  the  second  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 

§  31.    Arguments  for  the  bill. 

§  32.    Arguments  against  the  bill. 

§  1 6.  Effect  of  the  fugitive  slave-  clause  in  the  Constitution.  —  By 
obtaining  in  the  Constitution  the  insertion  of  a  clause  requiring 
the  return  of  fugitives,  a  great  step  for  the  advancement  of  the 
interests  of  slavery  had  been  taken.  For  this  embodiment  in  the 
Constitution  ever  afterward  formed  a  basis  for  the  slaveholder's 
argument  that  the  Constitution  recognized  and  defended  slavery, 
and  was  a  justification  to  Northern  men  in  their  support  of  the 
later  fugitive  slave  laws. 

Although..iii£.-.clause  did  not  in  terms  apply  to  the  Territories, 
the  Ordinance  of  1787  was,  on  August  7,  1789,  confirmed  in  terms 
which  by  implication  continued  the  sixth  article,  including  the 
rendition  of  slaves ; l  and  in  the  earliest  treaties  made  by  the 
United  States  with  Indian  tribes,  under  the  new  Constitution, 
the  return  of  negroes  was  expressly  required.2 

§  17.  The  first  Fugitive  Slave  Act  (1793).  —  For  some  time,  how 
ever,  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  remained  unexecuted;  and 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  I,  50.  2  Appendix  B,  No.  8. 

[16] 


§§i6-i;.J  The  First  Fugitive  Slave  Act.  17 

it  is  a  striking  fact  that  the  call  for  legislation  came  not  from  the 
South,  but  from  a  free  State;  and  that  it  was  provoked,  not  by 
fugitive  slaves,  but  by  kidnappers.  The  case  seemed  to  suggest 
that  an  act  of  Congress  was  necessary,  more  definite  in  condi 
tions  and  detail  than  the  provision  of  the  Constitution. 

A  free  negro  named  John  was  seized  at  Washington,  Pennsyl 
vania,  in  1791,  and  taken  to  Virginia.  The  Governor  of  Penn 
sylvania,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Society  for  the  Abolition  of 
Slavery,  asked  the  return  of  the  three  kidnappers ;  but  the  Gov 
ernor  of  Virginia  replied  that,  since  there  was  no  national  law 
touching  such  a  case,  he  could  not  carry  out  the  request.1 

On  the  matter  being  brought  to  the  notice  of  Congress  by  the 
Governor  of  Pennsylvania,2  a  committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Sedg- 
wick,  Mr.  Bourne  of  Massachusetts,  and  Mr.  White,  was  appointed 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  to  bring  in  a  bill  or  bills  "pro 
viding  the  means  by  which  persons  charged  in  any  State  with 
treason,  felony,  or  other  crime,  who  shall  flee  from  justice,  shall, 
on  the  demand  of  the  executive  authority  of  the  State  from  which 
they  fled,  be  delivered  up,  to  be  removed  to  the  State  having  juris 
diction  of  the  crime ;  also  providing  the  mode  by  which  a  person 
held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping 
into  another,  shall  be  delivered  up  on  the  claim  of  the  party  to 
whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due."3 

A  bill  prepared  by  the  House  committee,  of  which  Mr.  Sedg- 
wick  was  chairman,  was  reported,  November  15,  1791 ;4  but  for 
some  reason  which  does  not  appear,  it  was  dropped,  and  a  Senate 
committee,  of  which  Calvert  was  chairman,  was  appointed,  March 
30,  1792,  "to  consider  the  expediency  [of]  a  bill  respecting  fugi 
tives  from  justice  and  from  the  service  of  their  masters."  5  Noth 
ing  was  done  during  this  session,  and,  November  22,  1792,  a  second 
Senate  committee  was  appointed,  consisting  of  Johnston,  Calvert, 
and  Read,6  and  they  submitted  a  bill,  December  20,  1792.7  Un 
fortunately,  we  have  no  details  of  the  debate;  but  on  December  28, 

1  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong,  i  Sess.,  Appendix,  1585  ,  Annals  of  Cong.,  2  Cong.  I  Sess., 
II.  of  R.,  147. 

2  State  Papers,  Miscellaneous,  I.  39-43. 

House  Journal,  2  Cong,  i  Sess.,  444;  Annals  of  Cong.,  148. 

4  House  Journal,  2  Cong,  i  Sess.,  454  ;  Annals  of  Cong..  179. 

5  Senate  Journal,  170;  Annals,  115. 

6  2  Cong.  2  Sess.,  Senate  Journal,  460;  Annals  of  Cong,  616. 

7  Senate  Journal,  16;  Annals,  622. 


2 


1 8  Fugitive  Slaves  : — National  Legislation.  [Ch  ii. 

a  third  Senate  committee  was  appointed  by  adding  Taylor  and 
Sherman  to  the  committee  of  November  22,  and  to  them  the  bill 
was  recommitted  with  instructions  to  amend.1  At  last,  January  3, 
1793,  the  bill  was  reported  in  a  form  not  unlike  that  finally  agreed 
upon.2  Of  the  amendments  offered,  the  text  of  only  one  is 
preserved  in  the  Journals;  it  was  for  the  insertion  of  a  less  sum 
than  five  hundred  dollars  as  the  penalty  for  harboring  a  fugitive, 
or  resisting  his  arrest.3  It  was  not  adopted.  After  two  debates, 
of  which  we  have  no  record,  the  bill  passed  the  Senate,  January  i8.4 
In  the  House  it  seems  to  have  elicited  little  discussion,  and  it 
passed,  February  5,  by  a  vote  of  48  to  7.5  The  bill  became  law 
by  the  signature  of  the  President,  February  12,  I793-6 

In  thus  uniting  with  the  clause  providing  for  the  extradition  of 
fugitives  from  justice  one  requiring  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves, 
Congress  was  but  following  examples  set  in  1643  by  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,7  and  again  in  1787  by  the  Constitution.8  From 
the  scanty  records,  it  is  possible  to  discern  only  that  there  was 
serious  difference  of  opinion  in  the  Senate,  and  that  the  measure 
finally  adopted  was  probably  a  compromise.  In  the  one  amend 
ment  stated,  there  is  a  faint  protest  against  the  harshness  of  the 
law.9 

§  1 8.  Discussion  of  the  first  act.  —  The  provisions  of  the  act  of 
1793  are  quoted  elsewhere;10  their  purport  was  as  follows.  The 
act  provided  at  the  same  time  for  the  recovery  of  fugitives  from 
justice  and  from  labor;  but  the  alleged  criminal  was  to  have  a 
protection  through  the  requirement  of  a  requisition,  a  protection 
denied  to  the  man  on  trial  for  his  liberty  only.  The  act  was  appli 
cable  to  fugitive  apprentices  as  well  as  to  slaves,  a  provision  of 
some  importance  at  the  time.  In  the  Northwest  Territory  there 

1  Senate  Journal,  25,  26;  Annals,  623.  2  Senate  Journal,  28;  Annals,  625. 

3  Senate  Journal,  35  ;  Annals,  630.  4  Senate  Journal.  34,  35  ;  Annals,  630. 

5  House  Journal,  105  ;  Annals,  861.  6  Appendix  B,  No.  9. 

7  Ante,  §  8  ;  Appendix  A,  No.  8.  8  Ante,  §  15. 

9  For  general   discussions  of  the  act,  see  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History,  I.  309- 
315;   Hildreth,  History  of  the  U.  S  ,  IV.  406-440;   Lalor's  Cyclopaedia,  II.  315-316; 
Stephens,  War  between  the  States,  I.  629-636,  674;  Bancroft's  History  of  the  U.  S. 
(last  revision),  VI.  309,  310;   Gooclell,  Slavery  and  Antislavery,  227;  Curtis,  History 
of  the  Constitution,  II.  450-467;  Hurd,  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage,  II.  142;  Story, 
Commentaries,  III.  673-678;    McMaster,  History  of  the  American  People,  I.  508,  II. 
356,  357  ;    Elliott's  Debates,  V.  357,  487  ;  Schouler,  History  of  the  U.  S  ,  I.  219,  220; 
Tucker,  History  of  the  U.  S-,  I.  500. 

10  Appendix  B,  No.  9. 


§§  I7-I9-1  Propositions  of  1797  and  1802.  19 

were  so-called  negro  apprentices,  who  were  virtually  slaves,  and 
to  whom  the  law  applied,  since  it  was  in  terms  extended  to  all  the 
Territories.  Proceedings  began  with  the  forcible  seizure  of  the 
alleged  fugitive, 

The  act,  it  will  be  observed,  does  not  admit  a  trial  by  jury.  It 
allowed  the  owner  of  the  slave,  his  agent  or  attorney,  to  seize  the 
fugitive  and  take  him  before  any  judge  of  a  United  States  Cir 
cuit  or  District  Court,  or  any  local  magistrate.1  The  only  require 
ment  for  the  conviction  of  the  slave  was  the  testimony  of  his 
master,  or  the  affidavit  of  some  magistrate  in  the  State  from  which 
he  came,  certifying  that  such  a  person  had  escaped.  Hindering 
arrest  or  harboring  a  slave  was  punishable  by  a  fine  of  five  hun 
dred  dollars.  The  law  thus  established  a  system  allowing  the 
greatest  harshness  to  the  slave  and  every  favor  to  the  master. 
Even  at  that  time,  when  persons  might  still  be  born  slaves  in  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,  and  gradual  emancipation  had  not  yet 
taken  full  effect  in  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  it  was  repellent 
to  the  popular  sense  of  justice;  there  were  two  cases  of  resistance 
to  the  principle  of  the  act  before  the  close  of  I/93-2 

§  19.  Propositions  of  1797  and  1802.  —  Until  1850  no  further  law 
upon  this  subject  was  passed,  but  as  the  provisions  of  1793  were 
found  ineffectual,  many  attempts  at  amendment  were  made.  In 
1796  a  troublesome  question  arose  out  of  the  seizure,  under  the 
act  of  1793,  of  four  negroes  who  had  been  manumitted  in  North 
Carolina.  A  retroactive  act  of  that  State  had  declared  them 
slaves  again,  and  they  had  fled  to  Philadelphia  where  they  were 
arrested.  January  30,  1797,  tjiey  petitioned  Congress  for  relief, 
and  after  an  exciting  debate  the  House  by  a  vote  of  50  to  33 
refused  to  receive  the  petition.3  There  is  nothing  in  the  scanty 
records  which  connects  this  case  or  petition  with  an  attempt  to 
amend  the  act;  but  it  is  altogether  likely  that  it  occasioned  Mur 
ray's  motion  of  December  29,  1796,  for  a  committee  to  report  on 
alterations  of  the  law;  4  and  that  it  led  to  the  almost  simultaneous 
appointment  of  a  House  committee  on  January  2,5  and  a  Senate 
committee  on  January  3.6  No  report  is  recorded. 

i  Post,  §  27.  2  Post,  §§  34,  35. 

8  Annals  of  Congress,  1796-97,  p.  2015,  and  1801-2,  p.  343. 

*  House  Journal,  4  Cong.  2  Sess.,  65 ;  Annals  of  Cong.,  1741,  1767. 

5  Murray,  Cooper,  and  Kiltera.     Annals  of  Cong.,  1767. 

6  Sedgwick,  Reed,  and  Henry.     Senate  Journal,  4  Cong.  2  Sess.,  39;  Annals  of 
Cong.,  1528. 


2O  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  National  Legislation.  [Ch.  ii. 

The  coming  on  of  difficulties  with  France,  and  the  Alien  and 
Sedition  Acts  of  1798,  absorbed  the  popular  attention.  In  1800 
debates  on  the  slave  trade  and  on  the  reception  of  petitions  from 
free  negroes  began.  January  22,  1801,  a  House  committee  was  ap 
pointed  to  report  a  bill  increasing  the  stringency  of  the  act.1  The 
bill  was  reported,  but  failed  to  be  considered.2  In  the  next  Con 
gress  the  matter  was  at  last  brought  to  an  issue.  A  committee, 
of  which  Nicholson  of  Maryland  was  chairman,  was  appointed, 
December  n,  i8oi,3  and  reported  only  seven  days  later.  The 
report  was  made  a  special  order  for  December  2i.4  On  that  day 
no  debate  is  recorded,  but  a  petition  from  a  free  colored  soldier  of 
the  Revolution  was  contemptuously  denied  reception.5  January  14 
and  15,  the  bill  was  debated  freely,  and  from  the  debate  and  sun 
dry  amendments  the  character  of  the  bill  may  be  inferred.  Not 
only  harboring,  but  employing  a  fugitive,  was  made  punishable ; 
and  it  was  ordained  that  every  black  employed  must  be  furnished 
with  an  official  certificate,  and  that  every  person  who  employed  a 
negro  must  publish  a  description  of  him.  Southern  members 
"  considered  it  a  great  injury  to  the  owners  of  that  species  of  prop 
erty,  that  runaways  were  employed  in  the  Middle  and  Northern 
States,  and  even  assisted  in  procuring  a  living.  They  stated  that, 
when  slaves  ran  away  and  were  not  recovered,  it  excited  discon 
tent  among  the  rest.  When  they  were  caught  and  brought  home, 
they  informed  their  comrades  how  well  they  were  received  and 
assisted,  which  excited  a  disposition  in  others  to  attempt  escaping, 
and  obliged  their  masters  to  use  greater  severity  than  they  other 
wise  would.  It  was,  they  said,  even  on  the  score  of  humanity, 
good  policy  in  those  opposed  to  slavery  to  agree  to  this  law."6 
This  appeal  to  the  humanity  of  the  North  failed  to  produce  the 
requisite  effect.  On  the  test  vote,  January  18,  1802,  every  South 
ern  member  except  two  voted  for  the  bill,  every  Northern  member 
except  five  against  it ;  the  vote  was  43  to  46,  and  the  bill  was  laid 
aside.7 

1  Appendix  B,  No.  10. 

2  House  Journal,  6  Cong.  2  Sess.,  220 ;  Annals  of  Cong.,  1053. 

3  Nicholson,  Goddard,  Holland,  J.  Smith  (Va.),  Lowndes.    House  Journal,  7  Cong. 
I  Sess.,  34  ;  Annals  of  Cong.,  317. 

4  House  Journal,  7  Cong,  i  Sess.,  4$  ;  Annals  of  Cong.,  335. 
6  Annals  of  Cong.,  343. 

6  House  Journal,  7  Cong,  i  Sess.,  125;   Annals  of  Cong.,  422,  423;  Appendix  B, 
No.  10. 

7  House  Journal,  7  Cong,  i  Sess.,  125,  128;  Annals  of  Cong.,  423,  425. 


V 

\l 
§§19-20.]  Propositions  from  1817  to  18,13.  21 


§  20.  Proposittons  from  1817  to  1822,  —  For  many  years  the  ques 
tion  of  amendrn^k  of  the  law  does  not  appear  to  have  come  up 
in  Congress.  The  '^fcplition  of  the  slave  trade  seems  to  have  ab 
sorbed  the  attention%?f  Congress.  Several  treaties  were  nego 
tiated  including  clauses  on  the.  return  of  fugitives.1  The  question 
was  brought  up  again  in-i^|7  by  Pindall  of  Virginia,  who  for 
several  years  urged  a  revision  'bf  the  act.  A  committee  of  which 
he  was  chairman  was  appointed,  December  15,  1817,  and  reported 
a  bill,  December  29,  iSi/.2  This  third  proposition  of  general 
amendment  led  to  a  debate,  January  26  and  29,  1818,  in  which  for 
the  first  time  we  have  a  record  of  discussion  on  the  principles,  of 
the  act  and  its  relations  to  human  freedom.  The  opposition  was 
based  not  only  on  constitutional,  but  on  humanitarian  grounds.3 
A  petition  of  the  Pennsylvania  Abolition  Society,  asking  for  a 
milder  law  than  that  of  1/93,  added  fuel  to  the  discussion.4 

The  principle  of  the  bill  was  that  the  fugitives  should  be  sur 
rendered  by  a  requisition  on  the  State  Executive,  as  in  the  case  of 
fugitives  from  justice:  the  question  of  proof  was  thus  left  to  the 
courts  of  the  State  of  the  claimant,  and  there  was  to  be  no  habeas 
corpus.  The  strongest  expression  of  disapproval  is  found  in  the 
speech  of  Mr.  Adams  of  Massachusetts,  who  said,  "that,  in  guaran 
teeing  the  possession  of  slaves,  the  Constitution  did  not  authorize 
or  require  the  General  Government  to  go  as  far  as  the  bill  pro 
posed  to  render  this  bill  effectual;  that  the  bill  contained  pro 
visions  dangerous  to  the  liberty  and  safety  of  the  free  people  of 
color  in  other  sections  of  the  Union."5  Mr.  Rich  of  Vermont  de 
sired  "  that  it  might  be  so  amended  as  to  guard  more  effectually 
the  rights  of  free  persons  of  color.  This  motion  he  enforced  by 
urging  the  oppressions  to  which  these  persons  were  now  subjected, 
and  the  necessity  of  some  regulation  on  the  subject,  which  he 
thought  might  be  very  properly  connected  with  this  bill."  Q  Mr. 
Livermore  also  showed  that  it  exposed  the  colored  men  of  the 
North  to  the  peril  of  being  dragged  South,  and  there  convicted.7 

All  these  objections,  however,  were  considered  of  little  value 
by  some  who,  like  Smith  of  Maryland,  thought  that  the  subject  of 

1  Post,  §   22. 

2  House  Journal,  15  Cong,  i  Sess.,  50,  86,  182,  186,  189,  193,  198;  Annals  of  Cong., 
446,  447,  513,  819,  829,  831,  840,  1339,  1393. 

3  Appendix  B,  No.  13.  *  Annals  of  Cong.,  829. 
6  Annals  of  Cong.,  838. 

6  Annals  of  Cong.,  15  Cong.  I  Sess.,  829,  830.  7  Annals  of  Cong.,  838. 


22  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  National  Legislation.  [Ch.  ii. 

the  free  colored  population  and  their  protection  should  be  treated 
separately,  while  Mr.  Holmes  of  Massachusetts  suggested  that  the 
operation  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  wjHild  render  such  acts  of 
injustice  improbable.1  Masop,  of  the  sarrie  State,  objected  to  a 
trial  by  jury,  which  had  been  suggested,  because  "juries  in  Massa 
chusetts  would  in  ninety-nine  .cases  out  of  one  hundred  decide  in 
favor  of  the  fugitives,  and  he  did  not  wish  his  town  [Boston]  in 
fected  with  the  runaways  of  the  South."2 

Upon  two  constitutional  points  the  opponents  of  the  bill  made 
a  stand.  Mr.  Sergeant  wished  to  change  the  bill  materially,  by 
making  "  the  judges  of  the  State  in  which  .  .  .  slaves  are  seized  the 
tribunal  to  decide  the  fact  of  slavery,  instead  of  the  judges  of  the 
State  whence  the  fugitives  escaped,"  but  this  was  negatived  by  a 
large  majority.3 

Another  objection  to  the  bill,  raised  by  Mr.  Whitman,  is  note 
worthy,  since  some  years  later  it  was  the  point  made  most  promi 
nent  in  Judge  Story's  decision  in  the  Prigg  Case.4  Mr.  Whitman 
disapproved  of  the  provision  making  it  a  penal  offence  for  a  State 
officer  to  refuse  his  assistance  in  executing  the  act.  He  did  not 
believe  that  Congress  had  any  right  to  compel  State  officers  to 
perform  this  duty;  they  could  do  no  more  than  authorize  it.5 

A  vote  was  taken,  January  30,  1818,  in  the  House,  and  the  bill 
passed  by  a  vote  of  84  to  6Q.5  It  was  ordered  that  the  title  be  "  An 
Act  to  provide  for  delivering  up  persons  held  to  labor  or  service 
in  any  of  the  States  or  Territories  who  shall  escape  into  any  other 
State  or  Territory." 

For  the  first  time  since  1793,  amendment  of  the  act  seemed 
within  reach.  The  Senate  showed  itself  in  other  questions  more 
inclined  than  the  House  to  consider  the  claims  of  the  South ;  but 
although  Dagget's  amendment  to  strike  out  the  elaborate  pro 
vision  for  the  return  of  fugitives  by  executive  requisition  was  not 
adopted,0  the  Senate  first  voted  to  limit  the  bill  to  four  years,7 
and  then  added  other  amendments.  The  result  was  a  non-con 
currence  with  the  House,  and  the  failure  of  the  bill,8  March 

1  Annals  of  Cong.,  838.  2  Annals  of  Cong.,  838. 

3  Appendix  B,  No.  13.  4  Post,  §  25. 

5  House  Journal,  15  Cong,  i  Sess.,  198;  Annals  of  Cong.,  840. 

6  Appendix  B,  No.  14. 

7  Appendix  B,  No.  15. 

8  Senate  Journal,  15  Cong,  i  Sess.,  128,  135,  174,  202,  227,  228,  233;  House  Jcmral, 
328;  Annals  of  Cong.,  165,  210,  259,  262,  1339. 


§§  20-21.]  Period  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  23 

13-16,  i  Si  8.     A  last  attempt  to  take  the  bill  up  failed,  April  10, 

§  21.  Period  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  (1819-1822).  —  The  loss 
of  the  bill  of  1818  seems  not  to  have  discouraged  the  friends  of 
amendment  of  the  act  of  1793.  December  17,  1818,  a  resolution 
of  the  Maryland  legislature  was  laid  before  the  House,  calling  for 
protection  against  the  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  who  harbored  or 
protected  fugitives.2  A  committee  \vas  appointed,  January  15, 
1819,  which  promptly  reported  next  day,  but  the  bill  was  not 
considerecl.3'' 

The  question  of  fugitives  came  incidentally  into  the  great  debate 
of  the  next  session  on  the  admission  of  Missouri.  The  region 
which  sought  admission  as  a  slave  State  was  flanked  on  the  east 
by  free  territory,  and  was  therefore  peculiarly  difficult  to  protect. 
A  compromise,  which  made  Missouri  a  slave  State,  prohibited 
islavery  in  all  other  territory  gained  from  France  north  of  36°  30' .4 
'in  the  prohibitory  clause,  however,  it  wras  provided  "that  any 
persons  escaping  into  the  same  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  law 
fully  claimed  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  such 
fugitive  may  be  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claiming 
his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid."  5  During  the  immigra 
tion  into  Missouri  which  now  began,  large  numbers  of  slaveholders  \ 
took  their  slaves  with  them,  and  on  the  passage  opportunities  for 
escape  were  often  found.  In  one  instance,  at  least,  recorded  in 
Ohio,  the  public  sympathy  was  so  strongly  with  the  fugitives 
that  they  were  successfully  protected  from  their  masters  even 
in  court.3 

Hardly  was  the  ink  dry  on  the  President's  signature  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  (March  15,  1820)  before  propositions  were 
made  in  both  the  House  and  Senate  for  new  general  fugitive 
slave  acts.  M'arch  18,  a  House  committee  was  appointed,7  but 
no  report  is  recorded.  April  3,  an  inquiry  was  set  on  foot  into 
the  provisions  of  a  Pennsylvania  act  hindering  the  operation  of 
the  act  of  I793,8  and  the  Secretary  of  State  submitted  a  copy  of 

1  Annals  of  Cong.,  1716.  2  Cf.  Appendix  B,  No.  17. 

8  House  Journal,  15  Cong.  I  Sess.,  188,  191 ;  Annals  of  Cong.,  546,  551. 

4  Annals  of  Cong.,  16  Cong,  i  Sess.,  469,  1587. 

5  Appendix  B,  No.  16. 

6  Liberator,  Jan.  24,  1840  (N.  Y.  Evening  Post). 

7  House  Journal,  16  Cong,  i  Sess.,  427;  Annals  of  Cong.,  1863. 

8  Appendix  B,  No.  18. 


24  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  National  Legislation.  [Ch.  ii. 

the  obnoxious  act,  April  18.  On  the  day  of  the  Secretary's  report 
a  proposition  in  the  Senate  to  instruct  the  Judiciary  Committee 
to  report  a  bill  was  voted  down.1  Positive  evidence  cannot  be 
obtained,  but  it  would  seem  that  a  continued  effort  was  made  to 
take  advantage  of  the  agitation  on  the  slavery  question  to  secure 
a  new  fugitive  slave  act,  as  was  done  in  1850. 

One  more  attempt  was  made  in  1821-22.  Mr.  Wright  pre 
sented,  December  17,  1821,  a  resolution  of  the  Maryland  General 
Assembly  praying  for  relief  against  the  abettors  of  the  fugitives 
in  Pennsylvania.2  He  desired  a  special  committee,  but  the  ques 
tion  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  which  re 
ported  a  bill,  January  14,  i822.3  March  27  to  April  I,  it  was 
debated,  but  finally  tabled.4  The  character  of  the  bill  does  not 
distinctly  appear  in  the  records.  .• 

§  22.  Status  of  the  question  from  1823  to  1847.  —vU  though  no 
amendment  could  be  procured  to  the  act  of  1793,  the  government 
of  the  United  States  had  repeatedly,  by  diplomatic  demands  and 
treaties,  undertaken  to  recover  fugitives,  or  their  value,  for  Southern 
owners.  The  first  Indian  treaty  negotiated  under  the  Constitution, 
that  of  April  7,  1790,  with  the  Creeks,  required  the  return  of  ne 
groes  held  as  prisoners  of  war.5  A  similar  clause  appeared  in  the 
treaty  made  in  1814,  at  the  end  of  the  war  with  the  Creeks,  a  war 
which  had  be'en  provoked  in  part  by  their  ready  reception  of  fugi 
tives.6  In  1832  the  government  went  so  far  as  to  promise  to 
expend  seven  thousand  dollars  in  paying  for  "  slaves  and  other 
property  alleged  tb  have  been  stolen  "  by  the  Seminoles.7 

With  Great  Britain,  also,  the  encouragement  of  fugitives  became 
a  subject  for  negotiation.  Much  bitterness  had  been  felt  at  the 
carrying  away  by  the  British,  in  1783,  of  slaves  who  had  taken 
refuge  with  them.8  In  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  therefore,  a  strict 
clause  forbade  the  carrying  away  by  the  British  of  "  any  slaves 
or  other  private  property."9  A  large  number  of  slaves  had,  dur 
ing  the  war,  been  received  on  board  British  vessels,  and  the  hu 
mane  but  specious  plea  was  set  up  by  the  British  government  that 

1  Senate  Journal,  16  Cong.  I  Sess.,  319,  326;  Annals  of  Cong.,  p.  618. 

2  Appendix  B,  No.  18. 

3  House  Journal,  17  Cong.  I  Sess.,  143;  Annals  of  Cong.,  553,  558,  710. 

4  Annals  of  Cong,  17  Cong.  I  Sess.,  1379,  1415,  1444. 

5  Appendix  B,  No.  8.  6  Appendix  B,  No.  n. 

7  Appendix  B,  No.  19.  8  Ante,  §  13;  Appendix  B,  No.  2. 

9  Appendix  B,  No.  12. 


§§21-23.]  Canada  and  Mexico  Places  of  Refuge.  25 

the  clause  applied  only  to  slaves  received  after  the  date  of  the 
peace.  A  convention  of  1818  submitted  the  question  to  the  Em 
peror  of  Russia,  who  in  1822  made  a  decision  not  wholly  favor 
able  to  either  party;  and  in  I826,1  by  a  second  convention,  Great 
Britain  agreed  to  pay  $1,204,960.  This  last  award  was  obtained 
by  a  Pennsylvanian,  Gallatin,  acting  under  the  direction  of  Presi- 
clent  John  Quincy  Adams,  a  citizen  of  Massachusetts. 

§  23.  Canada  and  Mexico  places  of  refuge.  —  The  existence  on  the 
northern  and  southwestern  frontiers  of  regions  in  which  slavery 
was  practically,  if  not  yet  legally,  extinct,  brought  about  another 
set  of  complications.  January  24,  1821,  a  resolution  was  presented 
in  Congress  from  the  General  Assembly  of  Kentucky,  protesting 
against  the  kindly  reception  of  fugitives  in  Canada,  and  asking  for 
negotiation  with  Great  Britain  on  the  subject.2  In  1826,  Mr.  Clay, 
Secretary  of  State,  instructed  Mr.  Gallatin,  United  States  Minister 
at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  to  propose  the  "  mutual  surrender  of  all 
persons  held  to  service  or  labor  under  the  laws  of  either  country 
who  escape  into  the  territory  of  the  other."  The  British  govern 
ment  replied  that  any  such  agreement  was  impossible,  and,  though 
a  second  attempt  was  made  by  the  United  States,  it  was  without 
success.3 

In  1841  Mr.  Woodbridge  submitted  a  resolution  to  the  Senate 
requesting  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  to  consider  the 
expediency  of  entering  into  an  arrangement  with  Great  Britain  for 
the  arrest  of  fugitive  slaves  charged  with  crime  who  might  escape 
over  the  northern  boundary  of  the  United  States.4  No  action  was 
taken  upon  the  resolution. 

The  North,  however,  was  not  the  only  region  to  which  slaves 
were  fleeing  at  this  time.  Complaint  was  heard  after  1830,  that 
the  "  freedom  and  equality  granted  blacks  by  the  Mexican  Con 
stitution  and  law  of  1829,  was  attracting  large  numbers  of  slaves 
from  Louisiana,"  5  while  in  Florida  the  Seminole  trouble  was  not 
yet  ended. 

The  last  case  of  this  kind  occurred  just  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
Civil  War.  A  slave  by  the  name  of  Anderson  was  found  one 

1  Am.  State  Papers,  Foreign,  IV.  106-126,  VI.  346-354. 

2  Annals  of  Cong.,  16  Cong.  2  Sess.,  94. 

8  S.  G.  Howe,  Refugees  from  Slavery  in  Canada,  12-14;  Niles's  Register,  XXIII. 
26,  LV.  289. 

4  Appendix  B,  No.  21  ;  cf.  No.  24. 

5  Niles's  Register,  XXIII.  26. 


26  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  National  Legislation.  [Ch.  it 

clay  by  Mr.  Seneca  T.  P.  Diggs,  wandering  about  his  plantation  in 
Howard  County,  Missouri,  without  a  pass.  Mr.  Diggs  thereupon 
arrested  him  as  a  fugitive  slave.  In  the  struggle  which  followed, 
the  desperate  runaway  plunged  a  knife  into  Mr.  Diggs's  heart 
His  captor  dead,  Anderson  hastened  on  to  Canada.1  There  he 
lived  a  quiet  and  industrious  life  until  1860,  when  the  American 
government  called  upon  Canada,  under  the  extradition  treaty,  to 
give  up  Anderson  for  punishment.  He  was  arrested,  but  applied 
to  the  Toronto  court  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  which  was  re 
fused.  An  appeal  was  immediately  made  to  the  Queen's  Bench, 
England,  which  granted  the  writ.2  In  the  trial  Anderson  was  de 
fended  by  Mr.  Gerrit  Smith  in  an  eloquent  speech,  which  made  a 
great  impression,  and  was  circulated  all  over  the  United  States. 
The  prisoner  was  discharged  on  a  technical  point.4 

§  24.  Status  of  fugitives  on  the  high  seas.  —  When  in  1830  gradual 
emancipation  began  in  the  British  colonies,  and  in  1837  slavery 
ceased  to  exist  there,  a  new  set  of  complications  arose.  Amer 
ican  vessels  carrying  slaves  from  one  part  of  the  United  States  to 
another  were  repeatedly  driven  or  conveyed  into  British  ports,  and 
the  slaves  were  there  treated  as  ordinary  fugitives,  that  is,  as  free 
men.  Thus  the  Comet  in  i83O,5  and  the  Encomium  in  i834,6 
were  cast  away  on  the  Bahamas,  and  the  slaves  on  board  could 
not  be  recovered.  In  1835  the  Enterprise  was  forced  by  stress  of 
weather  to  enter  a  port  of  the  Bermudas,7  and  the  officers  were 
not  permitted  by  the  British  authorities  to  restrain  the  persons  on 
board. 

In  none  of  these  three  cases  were  the  negroes  restored ;  but  in 
1 840  the  British  government  paid  an  indemnity  for  the  first  two 
cargoes,  on  the  ground  that  at  the  time  of  the  wrecks  slavery  had 
not  yet  been  completely  extinguished  in  the  colonies.8  No  in 
demnity  was  allowed  in  the  Enterprise  case,  and  the  British  gov 
ernment  declared  that  it  could  assume  no  responsibility  in  cases 
arising  since  the  abolition  of  slavery.9  Elaborate  resolutions  intro- 

1  Liberator,  Dec.  31,  1860. 

'2  Pamphlets  on  Anderson  case,  Boston  Public  Library ;  Appendix  D,  No.  65. 

8  Life  of  Gerrit  Smith,  115.  4  Liberator,  Jan.  22,  1861. 

5  Von  Hoist,  II.  312  ;    Calhoun,  III.  9,  464,  486;  Senate  Docs.,  25  Cong.  3  Sess., 
No.  216. 

6  Wilson,  Slave  Power,  I.  439-442  ;  Congressional  Globe,  XIV.  50. 

7  Goodell,  Slavery  and  Antislavery,  252,  253;  Von  Hoist,  Calhoun,  204-209. 

8  House  Docs.,  27  Cong.  2  Sess.,  V.,  No.  242;   Congressional  Globe,  XIV.  50. 

9  Senate  Docs.,  26  Cong.  I  Sess.,  III.,  No.  1 1. 


§§23-25-]         Kidnapping  from  1793  to  1850.     Prigg  Case.         27 

duced  by  Calhoun,  March  4,  1840,  and  passed,  April  15,  by  a  unan 
imous  vote  of  the  Senate,  condemned  the  British  principle.1  Hut 
when,  in  the  next  year,  the  slaves  on  board  the  American  ship 
Creole  rose  and  by  force  carried  her  into  Nassau,2  the  British  gov 
ernment  refused  to  return  them  either  as  slaves  or  as  murderers.3 
Webster,  as  Secretary  of  State,  strenuously  urged  the  surrender. 
In  1853,  an  arbitrator  decided  that  an  indemnity  must  be  paid  to 
the  American  government.4  On  the  other  hand,  when,  in  1839, 
a  Spanish  vessel,  L'Amistad,  in  which  the  slaves  on  board  had 
revolted  and  killed  their  master,  was  brought  into  an  American 
port,  the  Supreme  Court  refused  to  permit  their  surrender,  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  free  by  Spanish  law,  and  therefore  could 
not  be  tried  for  murder.5 

§  25.  Kidnapping  from  1793  to  1850:  Prigg  case.  —  Since  slavery 
was  now  extinct  in  the  more  northern  States,  their  population  con 
tained  many  free  negroes.  Upon  them  the  eyes  of  the  slave  trader 
were  often  turned,  as  easy  prey  under  the  law  of  1793,  and  many 
cases  of  kidnapping  occurred.  It  was  such  instances,  involving 
as  they  did  the  most  manifest  injustice  and  cruelty,  that  first 
aroused  the  sympathies  of  the  people.6  The  border  States  like 
Pennsylvania  were  often  the  scene  of  these  acts.  The  neighboring 
white  families  first  began  to  try  to  protect  the  negroes  settled  near 
them,  and  a  little  later  to  give  a  helping  hand  to  those  escaping 
from  slavery,  and  at  last,  in  the  underground  railroad,7  to  complete 
a  systematic  organization  for  the  assistance  of  fugitives.  Cases 
of  kidnapping  are  recorded  as  early  as  i8o8.8  In  1832  the  carry 
ing  away  of  a  black  woman  without  process  of  law  not  only 
roused  the  people  of  Pennsylvania,  but  led  to  a  decision  which 
took  away  much  of  the  force  of  the  act  of  1793. 

A  slave  woman,  Margaret  Morgan,  had  fled  from  Maryland  to 
Pennsylvania.  Five  years  later,  in  1837,  Edward  Prigg,  an  attor 
ney,  caused  her  to  be  arrested  and  sent  back  to  her  mistress  with 
out  recourse  either  to  the  national  or  State  act  on  the  subject. 
In  the  act  he  disregarded  a  law  of  Pennsylvania,  brought  about  in 

1  Congressional  Globe,  XIV.  80,  113-118;  Calhoun,  III.  462  ;  Appendix  B,  No.  20. 

2  Senate  Docs.,  27  Cong.  I  Sess.,  II.,  No.  51. 

8  Cobbett's  Case,  47 ;  Dana's  Wheaton,  note  62 ;  cf.  Appendix  B,  No.  23. 

*  Lawrence's  Wheaton,  207,  n. 

6  Von  Hoist,  1. 321, 322 ;  Opinions  of  the  Attorney  Generals,  III.  484 ;  15  Peters,  518. 

6  R.  Smedley,  Underground  Railroad,  26. 

7  See/w/,  §§  71-76.  8  See /orf,  §  38. 


28  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  National  Legislation.  [Ch.  ii. 

1826  through  the  efforts  of  the  Society  for  the  Abolition  of  Sla 
very,  which  forbade  the  carrying  out  of  the  State  of  any  negro 
with  the  intention  of  enslaving  him.  Accordingly,  Mr.  Prigg  was 
arrested  and  convicted  in  the  county  court.  The  Supreme  Court 
of  Pennsylvania  sustained  the  decision.  Thence  the  case  was 
taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  There  the 
counsel  for  Mr.  Prigg  argued  that  the  statute  of  Pennsylvania  on 
which  the  indictment  was  founded  was  unconstitutional,  since  it 
conflicted  with  the  law  of  1793%  Justice  Story  delivered  the  opin 
ion  of  the  court,  and  upon  this  decision  all  future  judgments  were 
based.  He  announced  that  the  law  must  be  carried  out  through 
national  authorities  alone ;  the  States  or  State  magistrates  could 
not  be  forced  into  action.1  After  this,  many  States,  seeing  the 
advantage  thus  given  them,  passed  laws  which  forbade  the  officers 
to  aid  in  a  fugitive  slave  case,  and  also  denied  the  use  of  their  jails 
for  imprisonment.2  Plainly  the  Prigg  case  showed  a  growing  in 
disposition  on  the  part  of  the  States  to  carry  out  the  law,  however 
severe  its  provisions  might  be;  and  this  disposition  to  evade  its 
obligations  is  still  further  evidenced  by  the  cases  given  in  the  next 
chapter. 

§  26.  Necessity  of  more  stringent  fugitive  slave  provisions.  —  The 
increasing  number  of  rescues,3  and  the  occurrence  of  several  cases 
of  resistance,  proved  conclusively  the  inadequacy  of  the  law  of 
1793.  After  the  Prigg  decision  the  provisions  made  for  its  execu 
tion  through  national  powers  were  entirely  insufficient.  Underly 
ing  all  these  acts,  the  South  also  could  but  perceive  a  sentiment 
the  growth  of  which,  unless  checked  in  some  way,  would  at  last 
permanently  injure,  if  not  destroy,  their  peculiar  institution. 

§  27.  Action  of  Congress  from  1847  to  1850. -4  From  1822  until  1848 
apparently  no  effort  was  made  to  secure  a  new  law.  Then  a  peti 
tion  received  in  1847  fr°m  the  Legislature  of  Kentucky,  urging  the 
importance  of  passing  such  laws  as  would  enable  the  citizens  of 
slaveholding  States  to  recover  their  slaves  when  they  escaped  into 
non-slaveholding  States,4  gave  rise  to  a  bill  from  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary.5  The  bill  provided  "  for  the  more  effectual  exe- 

1  Appendix  B,  No.  22  ;   16  Peters,  957 ;  Report  of  Case  of  Edward  Prigg,  Supreme 
Court  of  Pennsylvania,  202;    Bledsoe,  Liberty  and  Slavery,  355;   J.  F.  Clarke,  Anti- 
slavery  Days,  69. 

2  Post,  §§  78,  79.  8  Postt  §§  34)  4I>  42< 
4  Senate  Journal,  30  Cong.,  i  Sess.,  59;  Congressional  Globe,  51. 

6  Senate  Journal,  30  Cong.,  i  Sess.,  313 ;  Congressional  Globe,  722. 


§§  25-29-]  The  Second  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 


29 


cution  of  the  third  clause  of  the  second  section  of  the  Fourth 
Article  of  the  Constitution."  J  It  passed  only  to  the  second  read 
ing.  In  1849,  Mr.  Meade  proposed  in  the  House  to  instruct  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary  to  report  a  fugitive  slave  bill.2  No 
report  apparently  was  ever  made,  but  this  was  the  last  ineffectual 
proposition.  In  1850,  a  new  law  was  successfully  carried  in  both 
Houses. 

§  28.  Slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  —  During  this  period, 
from  1840  to  1850,  the  sttty'ect  of  slavery  and  fugitives  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia  began  to  occasion  debate,  which  was  never 
long  silenced.  It  was  notorious  that  almost  under  the  windows  of 
the  Capitol  negroes  were  confined  in  public  jails  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  fugitives ;  and  that  a  free  negro  so  confined  might 
be  sold  for  his  jail  fees.  Resolutions  for  an  investigation  of  the 
condition  of  the  jails  were  offered  in  1848  by  Mr.  Giddings;3 
and  Mr.  Hall  also  introduced  more  sweeping  propositions  to 
repeal  all  laws  of  Congress  and  of  Maryland  which  authorized 
or  required  courts,  officers,  or  magistrates  to  issue  process  for 
arrest  or  commitment  to  the  jail  of  the  District  of  -any  fugitive 
slave.4  Congress,  however,  was  hi  a  •  mpod  too '  conciliatory 
toward  the  South  to  consider  these  propositions ;  and  no  action 
was  taken.  * 

§  29.  The  second  Fugitive  Slave  Act  (1850).— .In  the  early  part  of 
the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-first  Congress,  Mr.  Mason  of  Virginia 
introduced  a  bill  to  make  the  provisions  of  the  fugitive  slave  act 
more  severe,5  and  the  bill  was  reported  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary,  January  16,  1850.  Two  additional  amendments  were 
soon  offered  by  Mr.  Mason.  The  first  imposed  a  fine  of  one  thou 
sand  dollars  and  imprisonment  for  twelve  months  upon  any  one 
who  should  obstruct  the  execution  of  the  law.  The  second  pro 
vided  that  the  testimony  of  a  fugitive  should  not  be  admitted. 
Mr.  Seward,  in  opposition,  proposed  on  the  28th  to  allow  a  fugi 
tive  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  with  a  fine  of  five  thousand  dollars 

1  Senate  Journal,  30  Cong,  i  Sess.,  313;  Congressional  Globe,  722. 

2  Appendix  B,  No.  29. 

8  Appendix  B,  Nos.  25,  27,  28. 

4  Appendix  B,  No.  26. 

5  Appendix  B,  No.  30.     In  this  number  of  the  Appendix  is  a  summary  of  the  1 
lative  history  of  the  measure,  from  the  introduction  of  Mason's  bill,  Jan.  4,  1850,  to  th 
signature  of  the  act  by  President  Fillmore,  Sept.  18,  1850,  with  references  to.  the  records 
of  Congress. 


30  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  National  Legislation.  [Ch.  ii. 

and  the  forfeiture  of  office  should  the  right  be  disallowed  by  any 
judge  or  marshal.1 

Mr.  Clay's  "  Omnibus  Bill,"  by  which  he  intended  to  settle  the 
territorial  question  then  before  Congress,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
check  the  antislavery  movement,  contained  a  fugitive  slave  clause, 
though  not  so  severe  in  its  provisions  as  Mr.  Mason's.2  This  bill, 
however,  was  not  debated  as  a  whole,  but  each  proposition  con 
sidered  separately,  and  thus  Mr.  Mason's  bill  became  the  basis  of 
the  fugitive  slave  provision  in  the  Compromise  of  1850. 

The  measure  was  considered,  and  various  amendments  were 
offered,  until  August  26,  1850,  when  it  was  passed  by  the  Senate, 
and  a  few  days  later  by  the  House;3  the  signature  of  President 
Fillmore  was  readily  appended,  and  it  became  law,  September  18, 
iSso.4 

§  30.  Provisions  of  the  second  Fugitive  Slave  Act.  —  Every  pro 
vision  of  the  act  was  arranged  for  the  protection  and  benefit  of 
the  slaveholders.  It  was  based  upon  the  law  of  1793,  but  a  num 
ber  of  new  regulations  were  added.5  "J  Commissioners  were  to  be 
chosen  by  the  Circuit  Courts  -of  the  United  States  and  the  Supe 
rior  Courts  of  the  Territories,  to  act  with  the  judges  of  those  courts 
in  fugitive  slave  cases.  I  Such  commissioners  could  be  fined  one 
thousand  dollars  for  refusing  to  issue  a  writ,  and  were  liable  for 
the  value  of  any  slave  escaping  from  them.  -jThe  testimony  re- 

1  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong,  i  Sess.,  236. 
a  Senate  Journal,  31  Cong,  i  Sess.,  118. 

8  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong,  i  Sess.,  248;  Appendix  B,  No.  68.  The  'test  vote 
in  the  House  stood  as  follows  :  — 


STATES. 

+ 

For. 

Against. 

Not  voting. 

Total. 

New  England  States  .  .  . 
Middle  States 

7 

'5' 

10 

% 

Interior  and  Pacific  States 

16 

27 

8 

°3 

51 

Total,  Free  States  .  . 

Border  Slave  States     .  .  . 
Planter  States     

32 

32 
45 

75 

o 
o 

39 

6 
9 

146 

38 
54 

Total,  Slave  States    . 

77 

o 

15 

92 

Total   .... 

•7-0 

7:> 

54 

235 

1  Appendix  B,  Nos.  83,  84.  For  general  discussions  of  the  act,  see  Von  Hoist,  III. 
548-557.  IV.  9-12,  20-29;  Wilson,  Slave  Power,  II.  302-329;  Greeley,  American 
Conflict,  I.  210-221 ;  Cooley's  Story,  §  1921  ;  Lalor's  Cyclopaedia,  II.  315-317  ;  Bryant 
and  Gay,  U.  S.,  IV.  397-401. 

6  For  the  text  of  the  act,  see  Appendix  B,  No.  31. 


§§29-3T-l  Arguments  for  the  Bill.  31 

quired  for  rendition  was  the  official  declaration  of  the  fact  of 
the  escape  of  a  slave  by  two  witnesses,  and  the  establishment  of 
his  identity  by  oath.  I/The  testimony  of  the  accused  could  not 
be  admitted.  ^The  right  of  trial  by  jury  was  not  affirmed,  and 
was  therefore  practically  denied.  f  A  sheriff  might  call  upon  any 
bystander  for  help  in  executing  the  law,  and  the  penalty  for 
harboring  or  aiding  in  a  rescue  was  increased  from  five  hundred 
dollars,  as  in  1793,  to  one  thousand  dollars,  and  imprisonment  for 
not  more  than  six  months.  Should  the  slave  escape,  damages 
to  the  same  amount  were  to  be  paid  to  the  claimant  If  a  mob 
were  feared,  military  force  might  be  employed ;  and  by  a  discrim 
ination  little  likely  to  win  respect  for  the  act,  the  fee  of  the  com 
missioner  was  to  be  increased  from  five  to  ten  dollars  whenever 
the  case  was  decided  in  favor  of«the  claimant 

§  31.  Arguments  for  the  bill.  — The  deb'ate  on  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Bill  more  than  any  other  part  of  the  Compromise  illustrates  the 
character  of  the  slavery  conflict  Most  of  the  Southern  members 
urged  the  immediate  necessity  of  a  new  law,  but  some  of  the 
more  ardent  considered  the  evil  to  be  one  which  could  be  reached 
only  through  a  change  in  public  sentiment,  and  they  thought  all 
legislation  valueless.1  Mr.  Mason  thus  presented  the  evils  with 
which  the  law  must  cope.  He  stated  that  the  border  States  had 
found  it  an  impossibility  to  reclaim  a  fugitive  when  he  once  got 
within  the  boundaries  of  a  non-slaveholding  State ;  "  and  this  bill, 
or  rather  the  amendments,  .  .  .  have  been  framed  with  a  great 
deal  of  consideration,  to  reach,  if  practicable,  the  evils  which  this 
experience  has  demonstrated  to  exist,  and  to  furnish  the  appro 
priate  remedy  in  enabling  the  owner  of  a  fugitive  to  reclaim 
him."  Under  the  existing  laws,  "  you  may  as  well  go  down  into 
the  sea  and  endeavor  to  recover  from  his  native  element  a  fish 
which  has  escaped  from  you,  as  expect  to  recover  such  a  fugi 
tive.  Every  difficulty  is  thrown  in  your  way  by  the  population.  .  .  . 
There  are  armed  mobs,  rescues.  This  is  the  real  state  of  things."  2 

Not  only  were  the  laws  thus  set  aside  by  individuals,  but  also 
through  the  Underground  Railroad  an  organized  system  of  depre 
dation  was  carried  on,  whereby  thousands  of  dollars  were  every 
year  lost  to  the  slaveholder.3  As  an  illustration  of  the  extent  to  \ 

1  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong,  i  Sess.,  Appendix,  1610. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  I  Sess.,  1583. 

8  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  2  Sess.,  Appendix,  1051. 


32  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  National  Legislation.  [Ch  ii. 

which  this  disregard  of  law  was  carried,  Mr.  Yulee,  one  of  the 
most  extreme  of  the  Southern  men,  instanced  a  convention  which 
was  then  in  session  in  New  York  "for  the  very  purpose,  openly 
avowed,  of  congratulation  upon  their  successful  violation  of  the 
Constitution  in  respect  to  fugitives,  and  to  devise  ways  and  means 
to  encourage  the  escape  of  slaves."  ] 

Such,  according  to  the  Southern  Congressmen,  was  the  condi 
tion  of  affairs.     They  then  proceeded  to  contrast  it  with  the  situa 
tion  as  contemplated  by  the  Constitution,  and  supported  by  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Prigg  case.       Mr.  Butler 
insisted  that  this  bill  required  "  nothing  more  than  is  enjoined  by 
the  Constitution,  and  which  contains  the  bond  of  union  and  the 
security  of  harmony;   and  in  the  name  of  Washington,  I  would 
invoke  all  parties  to  observe,  maintain,  and  defend  it."      He  said  it 
was  the  handiwork  of  sages  and  patriots,  and  resulted  from  intelli 
gent  concessions,  for  the  benefit  of  all.2    Many  speeches  were  filled 
with  prophecies,  more  or  less  openly  expressed,  of  the  dissolution 
of  the  Union.     Mr.  Soule  said  the  South  must  fight  for  its  rights, 
since  it  is  the  weaker  of  the  two  sections,3     It  had  come  clown  to 
the  question,  How  could  the  Union  be  preserved?4     Some  con 
cessions  must  be   made*.    Mr.  Badger  urged  the  bill,  because   it 
"will  give  assurance,  it  will  satisfy  the  public  mind  that  the  Gov 
ernment  is  disposed,  is  truly  anxious,  to  accomplish  the  restitu 
tion   of  fugitive   slaves;    sincerely  wished   and  is  resolved   to   do 
right  to  the   uttermost  of  its  power.     The  proof  of  this  will  be 
complete,  because  we  furnish  the  best  means  for  the  recovery  of 
the  slave   himself,   and   if  these   fail  we   can   secure  prompt   and 
adequate  indemnity  for  the  loss."5 

§  32.  Arguments  against  the  bill.  —  On  the  Northern  side,  there 
seems  to  have  been  an  admission  that  some  bill  of  the  kind  was 
necessary  for  the  interests  of  the  Union.  The  opposition  dwelt 
chiefly,  therefore,  upon  the  details  of  the  measure.  Many  con 
sidered  them  unjust,  as  recognizing  only  one  class  of  rights,  those 
of  the  masters.  Mr.  Chase,  from  the  antislavery  wing,  demanded 
that  a  claim  of  this  kind  be  put  on  the  same  footing  as  any  other 
statutory  right.  "  Claims  of  right  in  the  services  of  individuals 

1  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  2  Sess.,  Appendix,  1622. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  1  Sess.,  79. 
8  Congressional  Globe,  3i  Cong,  i  Sess.,  78. 
*  Von  Hoist,  III.  493. 

6  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong,  i  Sess.,  Appendix,  1597. 


§32.]  Arguments  against  the  Bill.  33 

found  under  the  protection  of  the  laws  of  a  free  State  must  be 
investigated  in  the  same  manner  as  other  claims  of  right.  If  the 
most  ordinary  controversy  involving  a  contested  claim  of  twenty 
dollars  must  be  decided  by  jury,  surely  a  controversy  which  in 
volves  the  right  of  a  man  to  his  liberty  should  have  a  similar  trial. 
...  It  will  not  do  for  a  man  to  go  into  a  State  where  every  legal 
presumption  is  in  favor  of  freedom,  and  seize  a  person  whom  he 
claims  as  a  fugitive  slave,  and  say,  'This  man  is  my  slave,  and  by 
my  authority  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  I  carry 
him  off,  and  whoever  interferes  does  so  at  his  peril/  He  is  asked, 
'  Where  is  your  warrant?'  and  he  produces  none;  '  Where  is  your 
evidence  of  claim?'  and  he  offers  none.  The  language  of  his 
action  is,  'My  word  stands  for  law.'" 


CHAPTER    III. 

PRINCIPAL    CASES  FROM  1789    TO  I860. 

§  33.    Change  in  character  of  cases. 

§  34.    The  first  case  of  rescue  (i793)- 

§  35.   President  Washington's  demand  for  a  fugitive  (1796)- 
§  36.    Kidnapping  cases. 

§  37.   Jones  case  (1836). 
§  38.    Solomon  Northrup  case  (about  1830). 
§  39.   Washington  case  (between  1840  and  1850). 
§  40.   Oberlin  case  (1841). 
§  41.  Interference  and  rescues. 

§  42.   Chickasaw  rescue  (1836). 
§  43.   Philadelphia  case  (1838). 
§  44.    Latimer  case  (1842). 
§  45.    Ottoman  case  (1846). 
§  46.   Interstate  relations. 

§  47.    Boston  and  Isaac  cases  (1837,  1839). 
§  48.    Ohio  and  Kentucky  cases  (1848). 
§  49.    Prosecutions. 

§  50.   Van  Zandt,  Pearl,  and  Walker  cases  (1840,  1844). 
§  51.    Unpopularity  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1850. 
§  52.   Principle  of  the  selection  of  cases. 
§  53.    Hamlet  case  (1850). 
§  54.    Sims  case  (1851) 
§  55.   Burns  case  (1854). 
§  56.   Garner  case  (1856). 
§  57.    Shadrach  case  (1851). 
§  58.   Jerry  McHenry  case  (1851). 
§  59.   Oberlin- Wellington  case  (1858). 
^§  60.    Christiana  case  (1851). 
A  §  61.    Miller  case^i85i). 

§  62.   John  Brown  in  Kansas  (1858). 

§  33.  Change  in  character  of  cases.  —  The  cases  of  escape  which 
occur  in  the  period  beginning  with  the  formation  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  ending  with  the  passage  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  in 
1850,  will  be  found,  in  comparison  with  those  of  colonial  times, 
much  more  frequent,  more  complex  in  action,  and  more  varied  in 
detail.  Instead  of  many  colonies  under  governments  independent 
one  of  another,  there  was  now  one  government  and  one  country; 

[34] 


§§  33~35-]  The  First  Case  of  Rescue.  3  5 

nevertheless,  the  extinction  of  the  system  of  bondage  and  the  rise 
of  the  antislavery  sentiment  in  the  Northern  States  brought  into 
the  cases  new  and  difficult  elements.  No  attempt  will  be  made  to 
mention  the  cases  in  their  chronological  order,  or  to  describe  them 
all.  They  will  be  classified  into  cases  of  simple  escape,  of  kid 
napping,  of  rescue,  and  of  State  interference  ;  and  typical  examples' 
will  be  described  in  each  category. 

§  34.  The  first  case  of  rescue.  —  The  first  attempt  to  enforce  the 
act  of  1793,  of  which  any  record  has  been  discovered,  immediately 
revealed  its  unfairness,  and  the  indisposition  of  the  North  to 
carry  it  out. 

Mr.  Josiah  Quincy,  then  a  young  lawyer,  afterwards  known  as 
a  public  man  and  the  President  of  Harvard  College,  has  left  an 
interesting  account  of  his  connection  with  the  case.  "  He  states 
that  the  process  was  issued  by  a  justice  of  the  peace,  that  he  was 
retained  as  counsel  for  the  alleged  slave,  that  he  prepared  his 
brief,  and  went  down  loaded  with  all  the  necessary  authorities. 
He  found  a  great  crowd  of  people  assembled ;  but  while  he  was 
in  the  midst  of  the  argument,  he  heard  a  noise,  and,  turning 
around,  he  saw  the  constables  lying  sprawling  on  the  floor,  and 
a  passage  opening  through  the  crowd,  through  which  the  fugitive 
was  taking  his  departure  without  stopping  to  hear  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  and  that  was  the  last  of  that  case,  and  that  was  the  last 
of  the  law  of  1793  in  Massachusetts."1 

§  35.  President  Washington's  demand  for  a  fugitive.  —  As  has  been 
noticed  in  a  previous  chapter,  George  Washington's  boyhood  was 
connected  with  white  slavery.  Now,  at  the  zenith  of  his  public  life, 
we  find  one  of  his  chattels  the  occasion  of  the  first  recorded  refusal 
on  moral  grounds  to  return  a  slave.  In  1796,  President  Washing- 

1  Mr.  Quincy  also  states,  that  "  about  a  fortnight  elapsed,  when  I  was  called  upon  by 
Rufus  Green  Amory,  a  lawyer  of  eminence  at  the  Boston  bar  in  that  day,  who  showed 
me  a  letter  from  a  Southern  slaveholder,  directing  him  to  prosecute  Josiah  Quincy  for 
the  penalty  under  the  law  of  1793,  for  obstructing  the  agent  of  the  claimant  in  obtain 
ing  his  slave  under  the  process  established  by  that  law.  Mr.  Amory  felt,  no  less  than 
myself,  the  folly  of  such  a  pretence ;  and  I  never  heard  from  him,  or  from  any  one, 
anything  more  upon  the  subject  of  prosecution.  This  fact,  and  the  universal  gratifica 
tion  which  the  fact  appeared  to  give  to  the  public,  satisfied  my  mind,  that,  unless  by 
accident,  or  stealth,  or  in  some  very  thin  settled  part  of  the  country,  the  law  of  1793 
would  be  forever  inoperative,  as  the  event  has  proved  in  Massachusetts." — Meeting 
at  Faneuil  Hall  to  protest  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  letter  read  from  Josiah 
Quincy,  Boston  Atlas,  Oct.  15,  1850;  Goodell,  Slavery  and  Antislavery,  232;  Appen 
dix  D,  No.  12. 


3 6  Fugitive  Slaves : —  Cases.  [Ch.  ill 

ton  wrote  to  Mr.Whipplc,  Collector  of  Portsmouth,  N.  H.,  to  send 
back  to  him  one  of  his  slaves  who  had  escaped  to  that  place,  if  it 
could  be  done  without  exciting  a  mob.  This  letter  has  been  pre 
served,  and  the  following  extract  gives  us  an  insight  into  President 

the  rendition  of  fugitives  :  - 


Washington's  opinions  upon  the  re: 
'   "  However  well   disposed  I  mig 


However  well   disposed  I   might   be   to  gradual   abolition,   or 


even  to  an  entire  emancipation  of  that  description  of  people,  (if  the 
latter  was  in  itself  practicable,)  at  this  moment  it  would  neither  be 
politic  nor  just  to  reward  unfaithfulness  with  a  premature  prefer 
ence,  and  thereby  discontent  beforehand  the  minds  of  all  her  fellow 
serv'ts,  who,  by  their  steady  attachment,  are  far  more  deserving 
than  herself  of  favor."  : 

Mr.  Whipplc  answered,  that  any  return  would  be  impossible; 
public  sentiment  was  too  strong  against  it. 

§  36.  Kidnapping  cases.  —  The  great  number  of  cases  of  kidnap 
ping  throughout  the  period  from  1793  to  1850  show  what  cruel 
and  unjust  deeds  were  possible  under  the  existing  system,  and 
served  as  nothing  else  could  to  rouse  people  to  the  defence  of 
negroes.  Various  were  the  methods  by  which,  in  spite  of  law, 
kidnappers  were  enabled  to  secure  their  prey.  Perhaps  the  most 
common  practice,  in  places  where  the  courts  were  known  to  be 
friendly  to  slavery,  was  to  arrest  a  man  on  some  false  pretence, 
and  then,  when  he  appeared  in  court  without  opportunity  to  se 
cure  papers  or  witnesses,  to  claim  him  as  a  fugitive  slave.  Most 
of  these  cases  occurred  in  communities  bordering  upon  or  near 
the  Southern  States.  The  risk  and  trouble  of  transporting  slaves 
across  free  States  were  so  great,  that  up  to  1850  we  seldom  hear  of 
kidnapping  cases,  and  rarely  of  the  capture  of  a  genuine  fugitive 
in  the  New  England  States. 

The  natural  consequence  of  such  acts  of  outrageous  violerfce 
was  to  rouse  people  to  the  forcible  rescue  of  the  captured  negroes. 
In  the  earliest  cases,  colored  people  seem  to  take  the  leadership; 
later  on,  the  whites  joined,  and  became  most  active  in  the  work. 

§  37.  Jones  case.  --  The  following  instance  well  exemplifies  this 
form  of  oppression.  George  Jones,  a  respectable  colored  man, 
was  arrested  on  Broadway,  New  York,  in  1836,  on  the  pretext  that 
he  had  committed  assault  and  battery.  As  he  knew  that  no  such 
charge  could  be  sustained  against  him,  he  at  first  refused  to  go 
with  his  captors ;  but  finally  he  yielded,  on  the  assurance  of  his 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  13. 


§§35-38-]  Kidnapping.  37 

employer  that  everything  possible  should  be  done  for  him.  He 
was  then  placed  in  Bridewell,  and  his  friends  were  told  that  when 
they  were  wanted  they  "  would  be  sent  for  "  ;  but,  soon  after  one 
o'clock  that  same  day,  he  was  taken  before  the  Hon.  Richard 
Riker,  Recorder  of  New  York,  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  that  magis 
trate  was  proved  to  be  a  slave.  Thus,  in  less  than  two  hours  after 
his  arrest  he  was  hurried  away  as  the  property  of  the  kidnappers : 
their  word  had  been  accepted  as  sufficient  evidence,  and  he  had 
not  been  allowed  to  secure  the  presence  of  a  single  friendly 
witness.1 

§  38.  Solomon  Northup  case.  —  Sometimes,  if  they  feared  to  en 
ter  their  case  in  court,  slave  hunters  could  find  opportunity,  by 
watching  a  negro  for  a  while,  to  carry  out  their  plans  through 
some  small  deception.  One  of  the  most  striking  of  these  cases 
is  that  of  Solomon  Northup,  who  has  written  an  account  of  his 
experiences  as  freeman  and  as  slave.  He  was  born  in  1808  in 
New  York  State.  His  father  had  been  made  a  free  man  by  the 
provisions  of  his  master's  will.  Thus  Solomon  was  brought  up 
under  the  influences  of  freedom,  and  knew  little  of  slavery.  After 
his  marriage,  he  lived  for  some  years  in  Saratoga.  Here  he  earned 
a  comfortable  livelihood.  During  the  day  he  worked  about  the 
hotels,  and  in  the  evenings  he  was  often  engaged  to  play  the  violin 
at  parties.  One  day,  two  men,  apparently  managers  of  a-  travel 
ling  circus  company,  met  him  and  offered  him  good  pay  if  he 
would  go  with  them  as  a  violinist  to  Washington.  He  consented. 
Their  behavior  seemed  to  him  peculiar,  but  he  remained  in  their 
service,  only  to  find  himself  one  morning  in  a  slave  pen  in  Wash 
ington.  How  he  got  there  remained  always  a  mystery,  but  it  is 
evident  that  he  must  have  been  drugged.  Resistance  was  useless. 
He  was  carried  South  and  sold  to  Mr.  Epps,  a  hard  master,  with 
whom  he  remained  for  twelve  years. 

After  he  had  long  given  up  all  hopes  of  escape,  a  friend  was 
found  in  a  Northern  man  who  was  working  on  the  same  plantation. 
Mr.  Bass  consented,  though  at  a  great  risk  to  himself,  to  write 
some  letters,  telling  Solomon's  story  to  his  Northern  friends.  The 
letters  reached  their  destination,  and,  under  the  law  of  1840  against 
kidnapping,  a  memorial  was  prepared  to  the  Governor  of  New  York. 
He  became  interested,  and  immediately  sent  a  man  South  to  find 
Northrup.  After  a  long  search,  the  agent  was  directed  to  Mr. 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  19. 


38  Fugitive  Slaves: —  Cases.  [Ch.  m. 

Epps's  plantation.  Much  to  the  disappointment  of  the  master, 
who  used  every  means  to  prevent  his  return,  Solomon  was  identi 
fied  at  last,  and  went  back  to  New  York  again  a  free  man.  Efforts 
were  made  to  prosecute  the  kidnappers;  but  as  sufficient  evidence 
could  not  be  obtained,  no  case  was  made  out.1 

§  39.  Washington  case.  —  So  bold  did  these  stealers  of  men  be 
come,  that  they  sometimes  resorted  to  simple  force,  without  the 
slightest  attempt  at  concealment.  A  case  of  this  kind  occurred  in 
Washington,  D.  C,  between  1840  and  1850.  Three  or  four  men 
seized  a  negro  who  was  employed  in  a  hotel  near  the  Capitol,  and 
dragged  him  away.  Mr.  Hall,  proprietor  of  the  house,  after  trying 
in  vain  to  prevent  the  arrest,  succeeded  at  last  in  compelling  them 
to  take  the  man  before  a  magistrate.  The  justice  declined  to 
assume  jurisdiction  in  such  a  case,  and  before  any  other  protection 
could  be  provided,  the  man  was  hurried  by  the  kidnappers  into  a 
hack,  and  taken  across  the  Potomac  into  bondage.2 

§  40.  Oberlin  case.  —  Occasionally  the  result  was  less  fortunate 
for  the  captors.  In  Oberlin,  three  slave  hunters  seized  by  force  a 
negro  man  and  his  wife,  and  carried  them  to  an  inn  for  the  night. 
In  the  mean  time  the  people  of  the  town  decided  that  the  negroes 
must  have  a  trial.  They  therefore  employed  a  lawyer,  who  dis 
covered  that  the  writ  for  the  capture  was  illegal,  and  secured  a 
hearing.  The  captives  were  placed  in  jail,  but,  aided  by  some 
undivulged  agency,  they  managed  to  break  the  grates  of  their 
prison  windows,  and  escaped  to  Canada  before  the  day  set  for 
trial.3 

§41.  Interference  and  rescues.  —  After  a  kidnapping  case  had 
occurred  in  a  Northern  village  or  town,  measures  were  frequently 
taken  by  the  indignant  citizens  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such 
acts.  They  organized  vigilance  committees,  or  the  antislavery 
societies  took  it  up  as  a  part  of  their  work.  In  a  free  commu 
nity,  public  sentiment  would  not  allow  negro  towns-people  to 
stand  entirely  unprotected.  Thus  many  of  the  cases  of  inter 
ference  and  rescue  were  the  result  of  some  organized  movements 
on  the  part  of  the  white  people,  though  occasionally  they  came 
about  through  the  unpremeditated  action  of  a  mob. 

§  42.  Chickasaw  rescue.  -  -  The  first  case  which  has  been  found 
occurred  in  1836.  A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  served  against 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  16.  2  Appendix  D,  No.  42. 

8  Appendix  D,  No.  26. 


§§38-44-]  Interference  and  Rescues.  39 

Captain  Eldridge  of  the  brig  Chickasaw,  for  holding  two  colored 
women  in  his  ship  with  the  intention  of  carrying  them  South. 
As  both  presented  free  papers  at  the  hearing,  the  judge  ordered 
them  discharged ;  but  the  agent  of  John  B.  Morris  of  Baltimore, 
who  demanded  their  return,  declared  that  he  would  soon  have 
sufficient  evidence  to  prove  them  fugitives.  Thereupon  the  col 
ored  people  rushed  in,  took  the  women  to  a  carriage,  and  carried 
them  away  to  safety.1 

§  43.  Philadelphia  and  Kennedy  cases.  —  A  similar  but  unsuccess 
ful  attempt  was  made  in  Philadelphia  in  1838.  A  slave  had  been 
delivered  to  the  man  claiming  to  be  his  master.  As  the  captors 
were  about  to  take  him  away,  a  crowd  of  colored  people  gathered 
and  attempted  to  rescue  him.  It  was  not  so  simple  a  matter  in 
a  large  city  as  in  a  country  town.  A  body  of  police  soon  appeared, 
protected  the  slaveholders,  #nd  finally  arrested  some  of  the  leaders 
among  the  free  blacks.2 

A  few  years  later,  in  Carlisle,  Pennsylvania,  thrae  negroes  were 
arrested  and  their  identity  established  as  the  slaves  of  Messrs. 
Kennedy  and  Hollingsworth  of  Maryland.  The  colored  people  of 
the  neighborhood  had  caused  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  be  isstfed 
and  a  second  hearing  was  held.  Judge  Hepbu^ne  decided  that 
the  magistrate  first  employed  had  no  right  to  commit  the  alleged 
fugitives,  but  he  himself  remanded  them.  A  riot  ensued,  and  some 
thirty-six  persons  were  tried  for  participating  in  it.3 

§  44.  Latimer  case.  —  In  the  Latimer  case,  the  first  of  that  series 
of  famous  fugitive  slave  trials  which  took  place  in  Boston,  was 
strongly  developed  the  feeling  against  kidnapping,  or  in  fact 
against  the  rendition  of  a  slave  under  any  circumstances. 

In  1842,  George  Latimer  was  seized  in  Boston  without  a  warrant, 
at  the  request  of  James,  B.  Grey  of  Norfolk,  Virginia.  Latimer's 
counsel,  Samuel  E.  Sewall  and  Amos  B.  Merrill,  sued  out  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  but  after  argument  Chief  Justice  Shaw  denied  it. 
Mr.  Grey  asked  for  time  to  procure  evidence  against  Latimer  from 
Virginia.  The  judge  ruled  that  the  request  should  be  granted,  and 
that  Latimer  should  for  the  time  being  be  kept  in  the  custody  of 
the  city  jailer,  Nathaniel  Cooledge.  A  writ  of  personal  replevin, 
under  the  act  of  1837  securing  trial  by  jury,4  was  then  sworn  out, 


*  Appendix  D,  No.  20.  2  Appendix  D,  No. 

8  Appendix  D,  No.  35.  *  See/^/,  §  Si. 


40  ,  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Cases.  [Ch.  ill 

but  Justice  Shaw  decided  that,  according  to  the  decision  by  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Prigg  case,  the  law  was  illegal.1 

The  proceedings  aroused  great  indignation  throughout  the  city 
and  State.  Meetings  to  devise  means  of  aiding  Latimer  were  held 
in  Faneuil  Hall  and  Belknap  Street  church.  Stirring  speeches 
were  made  by  Wendell  Phillips  and  others,  and  resolutions  con 
demning  the  proceedings  of  the  authorities,  and  remonstrating 
against  the  return  of  Latimer,  were  adopted.  Bands  of  ruffians 
strove  to  break  up  the  meetings,  and  succeeded  in  greatly  disturb 
ing  them.  To  rouse  the  people,  to  give  expression  to  public  sen 
timent,  and  to  spread  the  news  from  day  to  day,  Dr.  H.  I.  Bow- 
ditch  and  Dr.  W.  F.  Channing  edited  a  paper  called  "  The  Latimer 
Journal  and  North  Star."  This  was  published  for  a  number  of 
weeks  by  the  friends  of  the  fugitive.  Petitions  were  sent  to  the 
sheriff  to  remove  the  jailer,  and  to  the  Governor  asking  the  re 
moval  of  the  sheriff  if  he  did  not  accede  to  their  demand.  There 
upon  Latimer's  custodian  agreed  to  give  him  up  for  a  sufficient 
payment.  The  sum  of  four  hundred  dollars  was  accordingly 
raised,  the  proceedings  came  to  an  abrupt  termination,  and 
Latimer  was  released. 

The  excitement  produced,  however,,  did  not  die  out  immediately, 
and  some  of  the  results  were  far-reaching.  So  intense  was  the 
public  excitement,  that,  soon  after,  a  petition  was  prepared  and 
sent  to  Congress,  asking  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution.  This 
was  signed  by  fifty  thousand  people  in  Massachusetts,  and  pre 
sented  in  the  House  by  Mr.  Adams.  Another,  signed  by  sixty-five 
thousand  people,  was  sent  to  the  legislature.  The  effect  was  the 
act  of  1843,  forbidding  all  officers  to  aid  in  the  recapture  of  a 
fugitive  slave,  or  to  permit  the  use  of  State  jails  for  their  imprison 
ment.  The  petition  to  Congress  was  not.  received.  A  resolution 
from  the  Latimer  committee,  which  proposed  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  so  as  to  base  representation  on  "  free  persons," 
brought  about  much  discussion,  and  was  not  received  in  the  House. 
In  the  Senate  it  excited  even  more  violent  opposition,  and  the 
resolutions  were  laid  on  the  table  and  not  printed.2 

§  45.  Ottoman  case.  —  Similar  indignation  was  felt  in  Boston  over 
the  case  of  Captain  Hannum  of  the  brig  Ottoman.  He  had  found 
a  runaway  concealed  on  board,  but  had  set  sail  to  return,  evidently 
with  the  intention  of  taking  the  man  back  into  captivity.  A 

1  Ante,  §  25.  2  Appendix  D,  No.  28;  see  post,  §  Si. 


§§44-48.]  Interstate  Relations.  41 

steamer  was  sent  out  to  rescue  the  slave,  but  the  Ottoman  man-* 
aged  to  elude  it,  and  the  man  was  lost.     At  a  meeting  held  Sep 
tember  24,  1846,  a  eommittee  was  appointed  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  similar  outrages.1 

§  46.  Interstate  relations. —  The  spirit  of  opposition  to  the  execu 
tion  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  made  itself  felt,  not  only  in  popular 
demonstrations  and  in  legislation,  but  in  interstate  relations.  We 
have  already  noticed  the  Prigg  case,2  and  its  effect  in  relieving  the 
States  from  any  responsibility  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law. 
Other  States  took  advantage  of  this  decision,  and  of  the  general 
principle  of  international  law,  that  one  nation  or  state  is  not  bound 
to  enforce  the  municipal  law  of  another. 

§47.  Boston  and  Isaac  cases  (1837-1839).  —  In  1837  a  runaway 
was  found  on  the  ship  Boston,  then  on  her  homeward  voyage  from 
Georgia  to  Maine.  After  landing,  the  slave  succeeded  in  getting 
to  Canada.  The  Governor  of  Georgia  charged  the  captain  with 
slave-stealing,  and  demanded  his  return  as  a  fugitive  from  justice. 
The  Governor  of  Maine  would  not  comply  with  the  request,  be 
cause,  as  he  said,  the  laws  of  that  State  recognized  slaves  not  as 
property,  but  as  persons.  The  indignant  legislature  of  Georgia 
adopted  resolutions  calling  upon  Congress  so  to  amend  the  laws 
that  the  Governor  of  Maine  should  be  compelled  to  give  up  slave 
stealers  as  fugitives  from  justice.  Resolutions  were  presented  in 
the  United  States  Senate,  but  no  action  was  taken.3 

The  refusal  to  use  State  machinery  against  fugitives  extended 
to  the  process  of  extradition  against  persons  connected  with  the 
rescue  of  slaves.  Thus  in  the  Isaac  case,  in  1839,  Virginia  asked 
New  York  for  the  arrest  of  three  colored  men  who  were  accused 
of  abetting  a  slave's  escape.  The  Governor  of  New  York  returned 
answer,  that  no  State  could  demand  the  surrender  of  a  fugitive 
from  justice  for  an  act  which  was  made  criminal  only  by  its  own 
legislation.4 

§48.  Ohio  and  Kentucky  case.  —  Kentucky,  in  1848,  demanded 
from  the  Governor  of  Ohio  the  extradition  of  fifteen  persons  on 
the  charge  of  aiding  the  escape  of  a  fugitive.  Governor  Bell 
refused,  on  the  ground  that  Ohio  laws  did  not  recognize  property 
in  man.5 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  34.  2  Ante,  §  25. 

8  Appendix  D,  No.  21.  4  Appendix  D,  No.  24. 

6  Appendix  D,  No.  37. 


42  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Cases.  [Ch.  in. 

0  §  49.  Prosecutions.  -  -  The  effects  of  the  aid  and  protection  thus 
given  fugitives  by  Northern  people  or  governments  awakened 
among  the  slaveholders  a  feeling  of  wrong  and  indignation.  The 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  clear,  and  they  determined  to  carry  it  out 
••to  the  letter.  They  began,  therefore,  energetically  to  prosecute 
'people  for  aiding  and  harboring  escaping  slaves.  The  case  just 
mentioned  shows  how  difficult  it  was  to  secure  prosecutions  be 
yond  the  State  boundaries.  When  the  offence  occurred  within  the 
bounds  of  a  slave  State,  the  judgments  were  most  severe,  and  the 
heaviest  possible  fines  and  longest  terms  of  imprisonment  were 
inflicted  for  simple  acts  of  charity. 

§  50.  Van  Zandt,  Pearl,  and  "Walker  cases.  —  Mr.  Van  Zandt,  re 
turning  into  the  country  from  Cincinnati  one  day  in  1840,  took 
nine  fugitive  slaves  from  Kentucky  into  his  farm  wagon.  He  was 
stopped  by  three  persons,  and  all  but  two  of  the  slaves  were  recap 
tured.  Mr.  Van  Zandt  was  arrested,  taken  into  court,  and  fined 
twelve  thousand,  dollars,  which  exhausted  his  entire  property.1 

A  still  more  severe  penalty  was  that  imposed  upon  Captain 
Drayton,  of  the  schooner  Pearl,  in  1848.  He  took  on  board  sev 
enty-five  fugitive  slaves,  and  sailed  up  the  Potomac.  An  armed 
steamer,  sent  in  pursuit,  overtook  them  and  brought  them  back. 
Captain  Drayton  and  another  officer  of  the  schooner  were  placed 
in  prison,  where  they  remained  for  twenty  years,  and  at  last  were 
relieved  only  through  the  efforts  of  Charles  Sumner.2 

Another  instance  of  the  same  sort  is  the  case  of  Mr.  Jonathan 
Walker,  in  1844.  With  seven  fugitives  he  embarked  from  Pensa- 
cola  in  an  open  boat  for  the  Bahama  Islands,  but  he  received  a 
sun-stroke  and  was  obliged  to  leave  the  management  of  the  craft  in 
the  hands  of  the  negroes.  On  account  of  the  accident,  they  were 
overtaken  by  two  sloops,  and  both  fugitives  and  their  protector 
captured.  Mr.  Walker  was  twice  tried,  imprisoned,  sentenced  to 
stand  in  the  pillory,  and  branded  on  the  hand  with  the  letters  S.  S., 
slave  stealer.3  The  crime  and  the  punishment  have  alike  been 
glorified  in  Whittier's  verses :  — 

"Then  lift  that  manly  right  hand,  bold  ploughman  of  the  wave  I 
Its  branded  hand  shall  prophesy  '  Salvation  to  the  Slave ! ' 
Hold  up  its  fire-wrought  language  that  whoso  reads  may  feel 
His  heart  swell  strong  within  him,  his  sinews  change  to  steel."* 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  25.  2  Appendix  D,  No.  40. 

8  Appendix  D,  No.  31. 

4  Liberator,  Aug.  15,  1845,  "The  Branded  Hand." 


§§49-53-1  Prosecutions.     Act  of  18 jQ.  43 

§  51.  Unpopularity  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1850.  —  The  passage 
of  the  new  law  probably  increased  the  number  of  antislavery 
people  more  than  anything  else  which  had  occurred  during  the 
whole  agitation.  Many  of  those  formerly  indifferent  were  roused  to 
active  opposition  by  a  sense  of  the  injustice  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Act  as  they  saw  it  executed  in  Boston  and  elsewhere.  Hence, 
in  the  cases  of  the  period  from  1850  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil 
War,  we  shall  find  a  new  element.  The  antislavery  party,  grown 
strong,  resisted  the  regulations,  and  instead  of  the  unquestioned 
return  of  a  fugitive,  as  in  colonial  times,  or  of  prosecutions 
carried  on  under  the  simple  conditions  of  the  act  of  1/93,  the 
struggle  became  long  and  complex.  In  fact  during  this  time 
hardly  an  important  case  can  be  cited  in  which  there  was  not 
some  opposition  to  the  natural  course  of  the  law.  These  exasper 
ating  effects  were  not  at  first  apparent  to  the  South,  since  before 
the  famous  rescues  began  several  cases  of  rendition  showed  the 
power  of  the  Executive.  As  the  escapes  grew  more  and  more 
frequent  yearly,  increasing  all  the  time  in  boldness,  the  slave 
holders  put  forth  greater  efforts  to  punish  the  offenders,  and 
prosecutions  were  numerous.  But  the  "  new  law  had  no  moral 
foundation,"  and  against  such  an  act  public  sentiment  must  sooner 
or  later  revolt,  no  matter  how  severe  may  be  its  provisions.1  As 
Mr.  James  Freeman  Clarke  has  said,  "  It  was  impossible  to  con 
vince  the  people  that  it  was  right  to  send  back  to  slavery  men 
who  were  so  desirous  of  freedom  as  to  run  such  risks.  All  edu 
cation  from  boyhood  up  to  manhood  had  taught  us  to  believe  that 
it  was  the  duty  of  all  men  to  struggle  for  freedom."  2 

§  52.  Principle  of  the  selection  of  cases.  —  The  large  number  of 
cases  occurring  between  1850  and  1860  renders  it  impossible  to 
present  a  detailed  account  of  them  all  in  a  brief  monograph.  The 
selection,  therefore,  includes  only  such  as  are  typical  of  the  various 
phases  of  the  agitation. 

§  53.  Hamlet  case  (1850).—  The  first  recorded  action  under  the 
provisions  of  the  law  of  1850  took  place  on  the  26th  of  Septem 
ber  of  that  year,  just  eight  days  after  the  passage  of  the  act. 
James  Hamlet,  a  free  negro,  who  with  his  family  had  been  living 
for  several  years  in  New  York,  was  on  that  day  arrested  by  a  dep 
uty  United  States  Marshal  as  the  fugitive  slave  of  Mary  Brown 
of  Baltimore.  After  a  hasty  examination  by  Commissioner  Gardi- 
1  Von  Hoist,  IV.  10,  ii.  2  J.  F.  Clarke,  Antislavery  Days,  92. 


44  Ftigitive  Slaves  :  —  Cases.  [Ch.  iii. 

ner,  he  was  surrendered  in  accordance  with  the  new  law.  These 
proceedings  were  not  sufficiently  well  known  at  the  time  to  excite 
a  mob,  but  when  discovered  they  roused  so  strong  a  feeling  that 
the  money  necessary  to  redeem  Hamlet  was  almost  immediately 
raised,  and  on  the  5th  of  October  he  was  brought  back  from 
slavery.1 

§  54.  Sims  case  (1851).  —  Another  instance  in  Boston,  often  men 
tioned  as  the  first  under  the  law  of  1850,  but  really  six  months  later 
than  the  Hamlet  case,  is  that  of  Thomas  M.  Sims.  A  common 
method  of  seizure  was  followed.  Marshal  Tukey  arrested  Sims  on 
a  false  charge  of  theft.  Mr.  Potter  of  Virginia  then  claimed  him 
as  his  slave.  Court  Square  was  filled  with  people.  The  Marshal 
feared  a  popular  outbreak  while  the  matter  was  pending,  and,  to 
the  indignation  of  the  city,  caused  the  court-house  in  which  Sims 
was  confined  to  be  surrounded  with  chains.  As  these  were  but 
four  feet  from  the  ground,  the  judges  as  they  went  in  and  out  from 
the  sessions  were  forced,  morning  and  night,  to  bow  beneath  them. 
The  building  was  also  strongly  guarded  by  a  company  of  armed 
men,  ever  afterward  known  as  the  "  Sims  Brigade/'  Robert  Ran- 
toul,  Jr.  and  Samuel  E.  Sewall  conducted  Sims's  case,  Commis 
sioner  Curtis  overruled  the  constitutional  objections  to  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  and  to  the  judicial  functions  of  the  Commissioners  of 
the  United  States  courts.  Then,  despite  all  efforts  of  the  antir 
slavery  people  in  his  behalf,  the  certificate  which  sent  Sims  back  to 
Virginia  was  made  out  and  signed  by  Commissioner  Curtis.2  The 
Liberator  says  of  the  popular  sentiment:  "One  feeling  was  visi 
ble  on  almost  every  countenance,  commiseration,  humiliation, — 
commiseration  for  the  victim,  humiliation  at  the  degradation  of 
Massachusetts.  No  man  talked,  no  man  thought,  of  violence. 
Why?  Because  it  is  acquiesced  in?  Not  no!-  Because  it  is 
approved?  A  thousand  times,  no!  but  because  government  is 
pleased  to  enforce  the  law,  and  resistance  is  hopeless." 3  Sims 
was  taken  from  his  cell  in  the  early  morning,  observed  only  by 
a  few  faithful  vigilants,  and,  amid  platoons  of  armed  men,  con 
ducted  to  the  United  States  ship  Acorn,  which  was  detailed  to 
carry  him  back  to  the  South.4 

The  indignation  of  the  antislavery  people  remained  to  be  ex 
pressed,  and  a  mass  meeting  was  held  on  the  Common  and  in 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  43.  2  Appendix  D,  No.  48. 

8  Liberator,  April  17,  1851.  4  Daily  Morning  Chronicle,  April  26,  1851. 


§§53-55-1  Sims  and  Burns.  45 

Trcmont  Temple.  Wendell  Phillips  and  Theodore  Parker  ad 
dressed  the  assemblage,  and  Phillips  noticed  the  fact  that  hostile 
troops  had  not  been  seen  in  the  streets  of  Boston  since  the  red 
coats  marched  up  from  Long  Wharf.1 

§  55.  Burns  case  (1854),  —  The  rendition  of  Anthony  Burns  in 
1854  was  the  last  great  fugitive  slave  case  which  occurred  in 
Boston.  Burns  was  the  property  of  Charles  F.  Suttle  of  Virginia. 
He  escaped  in  1854,  and  came  to  Boston.  One  of  the  first  things 
he  did  was  to  write  a  letter  to  his  brother,  still  a  slave  in  the 
South.  Unfortunately,  though  this  was  mailed  in  Canada,  by  some 
oversight  it  was  dated  in  Boston.  Since  a  letter  to  a  slave  was 
always  opened  by  the  master,  Burns's  hiding  place  was  discov 
ered.2  He  was  arrested  upon  the  usual  charge  of  theft.  Then, 
upon  a  warrant  issued  by  Judge  Loring,  he  was  claimed  as  a 
fugitive  slave  by  Suttle. 

When  the  knowledge  of  the  arrest  began  to  circulate,  the  most 
intense  excitement  prevailed.  Handbills  asking  all  antislavery 
people  to  go  to  Boston  were  sent  throughout  the  country.  Public 
meetings  held  in  Faneuil  and  Meionaon  Halls  were  crowded  with 
representatives  from  all  the  towns  about.3  One  of  the  people  who 
took  part  in  the  attempted  rescue  which  followed  one  of  these 
meetings  thus  describes  it:- 

\  "  On  the  evening  of  the  26th  of  May,  we  went  down  to  Fan 
euil  Hall  to  hear  Wendell  Phillips.  He  counselled  waiting  until 
morning  before  any  attempt  to  rescue  Burns  should  be  made, 
but  the  excited  audience  silenced  him  with  shouts  of  *  No,  no  ! 
to-night !  to-night ! ' 

"  Mr.  Phillips  saw  that  it  was  useless  to  try  to  go  on,  so  he  sat 
down  and  Mr.  Theodore  Parker  began  speaking.  At  first  he  ad 
vocated  the  same  plan,  but  at  last,  as  he  found  the  crowd  growing 
more  and  more  eager  and  uproarious,  he  said,  'Well,  if  you  will, 
let  us  go  ! '  and  led  the  way  out  of  the  hall.  The  people  followed, 
and  my  friend  and  I  were  among  the  first  to  reach  the  court 
house.  There  we  found  prepared  for  us  long  beams  and  boxes 
of  axes.  Five  or  six  men  seized  one  of  these  beams,  and  before 
its  pressure  the  large  door  of  the  court-house  crushed  like  glass. 
Mr.  Higginson  first  stepped  in,  but  just  then  a  pistol  shot  was 
heard,  and  the  mob  fell  back.  Mr.  Higginson  looked  around, 

1  Liberator,  April  17,  1851.  2  Appendix  D,  No,  57. 

8  Boston  Journal,  May  29,  1854. 


46  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Cases.  [Ch.  Hi. 

and  entreated  them  not  to  desert  him,  but  the  favorable  moment 
\vas  gone.  The  people  should  have  lost  no  time  in  filling  the 
house,  for  the  marines  had  been  ordered  from  the  Navy  Yard, 
and  when  they  appeared  nothing  further  could  be  done." 1  In 
this  riot  James  Batchelder,  one  of  the  Marshal's  guards,  was 
killed. 

At  the  trial,  though  Burns  was  ably  defended  by  Mr.  R.  H. 
Dana  and  others,  it  was  of  no  avail.  His  identity  was  unfortu 
nately  established  from  the  first.  He  had  recognized  and  ad 
dressed  »his  master,  and  also  a  Mr.  Brant,  who  had  once  hired  him. 
The  order  for  his  rendition  was  therefore  at  once  given.2 

Guarded  by  a  large  military  force  he  was  conducted  through 
the  streets,  filled  with  an  indignant  multitude,  to  the  United  States 
cutter  Morris,  which  had  been  ordered  by  the  President  to  take 
him  back.3  Many  buildings  on  the  route  were  hung  with  black, 
and  so  great  was  the  popular  excitement,  that  Rev.  J.  F.  Clarke,  an 
eyewitness  of  the  affair,  has  said :  "  It  was  evident  that  a  very 
trifling  incident  might  have  brought  on  a  collision,  and  flooded 
the  streets  with  blood." 

The  difficulty  of  enforcing  the  act  was  shown  in  the  precaution 
ary  measures  immediately  adopted  by  the  government.  The  city 
police,  the  militia,  the  marines,  and  some  regular  troops,  were 
ordered  out  to  the  task  of  guarding  one  poor  fugitive.  It  cost 
the  country  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  send  this  single 
slave  back  to  his  master.4 

Not  long  after  Burns's  return,  a  sum  of  money,  to  which  Charles 
Devens, -United  States  Marshal  at  his  trial,  contributed  largely, 
was  raised  in  Boston  and  the  vicinity  for  his  purchase ;  but  it  was 
found  impossible  to  effect  it.5 

Mr.  Higginson,  Wendell  Phillips,  and  Theodore  Parker,  with 
others,  were  indicted  for  riot,  but  the  indictment  was  quashed  by 
Judge  Curtis  on  technical  grounds,  and  they  were  discharged.6 

§  56.  Garner  case  (1856).  —  Of  all  the  cases  of  rendition,  the  sad 
dest,  and  next  to  the  Burns  case  probably  the  best  known  at  the 

1  Personal  statement  of  Mr.  Elbridge  Sprague,  made  to  the  writer.     Col.  T.  W. 
Higginson  suggests   a  few  minor  corrections  in  Mr.  Sprague's  narrative.     The    first 
person  to  step  in  was  an  unknown  negro  :  the  beam  used  was  found  in  Court  Square ; 
none  were  prepared  beforehand;  there  was  but  one  box  of  axes. 

2  Boston  Daily  Advertiser,  1854,  Worcester  Spy,  May  31,  1854,  Argument  of  Mr. 
R.  H.  Dana. 

3  Liberator,  Aug.  22,  1854.  4  Von  Hoist,  V.  64. 

5  Appendix  D,  No.  57.  6  Commonwealth,  June  26,  1854. 


§§55-57-1  Garner  and  Shadrach.  47 

time,  was  that  of  Margaret  Garner.  In  accounts  of  the  Undcr- 
grour^  Railroad  we  are  told  that  winter  was  the  favorite  season 
for  flight  in  the  section  of  the  country  south  of  the  Ohio,  since  ice 
then  covered  the  river,  and  the  difficulty  of  crossing  by  boat  did 
not  arise.  It  was  at  this  season  that  Simeon  Garner,  his  son  Rob 
ert,  and  their  families,  fled  from  Kentucky  and  crossed  the  frozen 
stream  to  the  house  of  a  colored  man  in  Cincinnati.  They  were 
soon  traced  thither,  and  after  a  desperate  hand  to  hand  struggle 
the  house  was  entered.  There  the  pursuers  found  that  Mar 
garet  Garner,  preferring  for  her  children  death  to  slavery,  had 
striven  to  take  their  lives,  and  one  lay  dead.  The  case  was  im 
mediately  brought  into  court,  where,  despite  the  efforts  made  to 
save  them,  rendition  was  decided  upon.  On  the  way  back,  Mar 
garet,  in  despair,  attempted  to  drown  herself  and  her  child  in  the 
river;  but  even  the  deliverance  of  death  was  denied  her,  for  she 
was  recovered  and  sold,  to  be  carried  yet  farther  south.1 

§  57.  Shadrach  case  (1851).  —  In  the  three  typical  cases  just  de 
scribed,  neither  the  law's  delay,  violent  interference,  nor  the  des 
peration  of  the  slave,  availed  to  prevent  the  return  of  the  fugitive 
to  the  oppressor.  Let  us  turn  from  this  group,  and  take  up  those 
more  important  cases  wherein  the  law  was  not  allowed  to  complete 
its  course,  but  rescues  were  accomplished,  either  by  free  negroes 
or  antislavery  people.  First  in  time  and  importance  comes  the 
case  of  Shadrach,  which  occurred  in  Boston  in  February,  1851. 

In  May,  1850,  a  slave  named  Frederic  Wilkins  had  run  away 
from  Virginia  and  come  to  Boston,  where  he  found  employment  as 
a  waiter  in  the  Cornhill  Coffee  House  under  the  alias  of  Shadrach. 
He  had  been  there  not  quite  a  year,  however,  when  John  De  Bere, 
his  master  in  Norfolk,  sent  some  one  in  pursuit  of  him.  A  war 
rant  was  served  and  he  was  arrested  while  at  work.  United  States 
Commissioner  Riley  then  took  him  to  the  court-house,  where 
Mr.  List,  a  young  lawyer  of  antislavery  sympathies,  offered  his 
aid  as  counsel,  and  Messrs.  Charles  G.  Davis,  Samuel  E.  Sewall, 
and  Ellis  Gray  Loring  also  came  to  his  assistance.  Mr.  List  ob 
tained  some  delay  in  the  proceedings ;  but  since,  by  the  act  of 
1 843,2  the  use  of  State  jails  had  been  denied  for  fugitives,  the  offi 
cers  were  obliged  to  keep  the  prisoner  in  the  court-room  until  an 
other  place  of  confinement  could  be  found.  By  this  time  a  large 
number  of  people  had  gathered  about  the  building,  and  were  trying 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  58.  2  See/*rf,  §  81. 


48  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Cases.  [Ch.  iii. 

to  force  an  entrance.  For  a  long  time  they  were  unable  to  enter, 
but  at  last  opportunity  was  given  as  Mr.  Davis  opened  the  c^pr  to 
leave  the  court-room.  In  spite  of  all  efforts  on  the  part  of  the 
officers  to  close  the  door,  a  body  of  colored  people  under  the  lead 
of  Lewis  Hayden  rushed  in  and  seized  the  prisoner.  They  carried 
him  triumphantly  out  of  the  court-room  on  their  shoulders,  and 
soon  saw  him  safely  started  for  Canada.  Mr.  Davis  and  others 
were  prosecuted  for  aiding  in  the  rescue,  but  nothing  was  proved 
against  them.  Intense  excitement  prevailed  in  the  city,  and  finally 
throughout  the  country,  since  Congress  took  up  this  infringement 
of  the  law.1 

Mr.  Clay,  February  17,  1851,  introduced  a  resolution  which 
requested  the  President  to  send  to  Congress  "  any  information  he 
may  possess  in  regard  to  the  alleged  recent  case  of  a  forcible 
resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  in  the 
city  of  Boston,"  and  communicate  to  Congress  "  what  means  he 
has  adopted  to  meet  the  occurrence,"  and  "whether,  in  his  opinion, 
any  additional  legislation  is  necessary  to  meet  the  exigencies  of 
the  case."2  President  Pierce  then  issued  a  proclamation  announ 
cing  the  facts  to  the  country,  and  calling  on  all  people  to  assist  in 
quelling  this  and  other  disturbances.  The  Senate's  request  was 
also  answered  in  an  Executive  message  to  Congress,  which  an 
nounced  to  them  that  the  President  would  use  all  his  constitutional 
powers  to  insure  the  execution  of  the  laws.  Such  unusual  national 
interference  gave  the  case  wide  celebrity,  and,  as  Von  Hoist  says, 
"  The  pretensions  and  assumptions  of  the  South  were  encouraged 
in  a  very  unwise  way,  by  the  fact  that,  by  such  a  manner  of 
treating  the  matter,  people  seemed  to  recognize  that  it  was  en 
titled  to  hold  the  whole  North  responsible  for  every  violation  of 
the  compromise,  which  could  properly  be  laid  at  the  door  of  only 
a  few  individuals.  The  proclamation  and  the  message  placed 
the  compromise  in  a  far  more  glaring  light  than  the  liberation  of 
Shadrach."  3 

§  58.  Jerry  McHenry  rescue  (1851).  —  Later,  a  case  occurred  at 
Syracuse,  New  York,  which  was  a  significant  illustration  of  the 
successful  action  of  a  vigilance  committee.  Jerry  McHenry,  a 
respectable  colored  man  who  had  lived  for  several  years  in  that 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  47. 

2  31  Cong.  2  Sess.,  Senate  Journal,  187  ;  Congressional  Globe,  580. 
8  Von  Hoist,  III.  25. 


§§  57-59-1  Rescues.  49 

city,  was  arrested  in  October,  1851,  as  a  fugitive  slave.  At  the 
examination,  which  took  place  at  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  he 
foufra  opportunity  to  break  away  from  the  officers  and  escape 
through  the  crowd,  which  opened  to  allow  him  to  pass.  He  was, 
however,  immediately  pursued  and  recaptured.  It  so  happened 
that  an  Agricultural  Fair  and  a  convention  of  the  Liberty  Party 
were  going  on  at  that  iime  in  Syracuse,  and  the  city  was  unusually 
full  of  people.  When  the  alarm  bell  gave  notice  to  the  vigilance 
committee  that  a  negro  had  been  seized,  Mr.  Gerrit  Smith,  who 
was  attending  the  meetings,  and  Rev.  Samuel  J.  May,  with  others, 
hastened  to  the  scene.  The  Commissioner,  after  the  capture,  had 
again  taken  up  the  trial,  but  such  a  disturbance  was  made  by  the 
crowd  which  gathered  outside  that  he  was  forced  to  adjourn. 
Meanwhile,  Mr.  Smith  with  the  committee  had  planned  a  rescue, 
and  at  about  half-past  eight  fully  two  thousand  people  had  assem 
bled,  and  an  assault  was  begun  upon  the  court-house.  They  broke 
doors  and  windows,  overpowered  the  officers,  and  at  last  bore 
Jerry  away  in  triumph. 

He  remained  in  the  home  of  a  friend  until  he  could  be  sent  to 
Canada.  Prosecutions  were  immediately  instituted,  and  eighteen 
persons  indicted  for  taking  part  in  the  rescue,  but  nothing  came 
of  the  case.  On  the  other  side,  Henry  W.  Allen,  Marshal  in  the 
case,  was  tried  for  kidnapping.  The  judge  declared  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Act  unconstitutional,  but  a  verdict  of  not  guilty  was 
rendered.1  \f 

§  59.  Oberlin-Wellington  rescue  (1858).  —  Sometimes,  however,'' 
general  sentiment  was  so  strong  that  the  rescue  became,  not  an 
action  instigated  and  carried  through  by  three  or  four  deter 
mined  men,  but  the  indignant  uprising  of  a  whole  town.  Such 
was  the  Oberlin- Wellington  case,  celebrated  for  the  great  number 
of  prosecutions  and  the  high  character  of  those  engaged  in  it^ 
Two  kidnappers  from  Kentucky  induced  an  Oberlin  boy,  by  a 
bribe  of  twenty  dollars,  to  entice  away  a  negro  named  John  Rice 
on  pretence  of  giving  him  work.  Having  taken  him  to  a  lonely 
spot,  he  was  seized  and  carried  about  eight  miles  across  country 
to  Wellington,  there  to  await  the  south  bound  train. 

On  the  way  the  party  was  overtaken  by  an  Oberlin  College 
student,  who  at  once  gave  the  alarm.  A  crowd  gathered  and 
followed  the  kidnappers  to  the  railway  station.  There,  by  placing 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  51. 
4 


50  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Cases.  [Ch.  in. 

a  ladder  upon  the  balcony  they  succeeded  in  rescuing  John  from 
the  upper  story  of  the  house  in  which  he  was  confined.  Foi^his 
violation  of  the  law  thirty-seven  citizens  of  Oberlin  and  Wellington 
were  indicted.  This  produced  the  greatest  excitement  all  over  the 
country,  and  the  case  grew  more  and  more  complicated,  until  the 
proceedings  had  lasted  several  months.  Public  meetings  to  ex 
press  sympathy  with  the  prosecuted  were  held  in  many  places. 
Some  of  them  were  imprisoned  to  await  the  trial,  but  no  severe 
sentences  were  imposed.1 

§  60.  Christiana  case  (1851).  —  Occasionally  the  rescue  of  fugi 
tives  was  not  accomplished  by  a  sudden  unorganized  movement, 
but  by  a  deliberate  armed  defence  on  the  part  of  the  slaves  and 
their  friends.  In  the  Christiana  case  the  affair  was  marked  by 
violence  and  bloodshed,  while  the  fact  that  the  Quakers  Castner 
Hanway  and  Elijah  Lewis  were  afterward  prosecuted  made  it  no 
torious  ;  and  the  further  fact  that  the  charge  was  not,  as  usual,  that 
of  aiding  a  fugitive,  but  of  treason,  gave  it  still  greater  interest. 

In  and  about  Christiana,  Pennsylvania,  there  were  many  ne 
groes  who  had  formerly  been  slaves,  descriptions  of  whom  were 
frequently  furnished  to  kidnappers  by  a  band  of  men  known, 
throughout  the  country  as  the  "  Gap  Gang."  A  league  for  mutual 
protection  had  therefore  been  formed  by  the  colored  people,  and 
prominent  among  them  for  intelligence  and  boldness  was  William 
Parker.  Soon  after  the  passage  of  the  law  of  1850,  Edward  Gor- 
such  and  a  party  came  from  Maryland  to  Christiana  for  a  fugitive 
slave.  With  United  States  officers  from  Philadelphia  they  went 
immediately  to  the  house  of  William  Parker,  where  the  man  they 
were  seeking  was  sheltered.  When  their  demand  was  refused,  they 
fired  two  shots  at  the  house.  This  roused  the  people,  and  a  riot 
ensued  in  which  the  fugitive  escaped.  Mr.  Gorsuch  was  killed, 
his  son  desperately  wounded,  and  the  rest  put  to  flight.  Castner 
Hanway  at  the  beginning  of  the  struggle  was  notified  of  the  kid 
nappers'  presence,  and,  though  feeble  in  health,  hastened  to  the 
scene.  When  ordered  by  Marshal  Kline  to  aid  him  in  accord 
ance  with  the  law,  he  refused;  yet,  far  from  leading  in  the  affair, 
he  tried  in  every  way  to  prevent  bloodshed  and  bring  about 
peace. 

After  it  was  over,  Parker,  with  two  other  colored  men,  knowing 
that  arrest  must  follow,  secreted  themselves  under  piles  of  shav- 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  62. 


" 

^ 

((  UNIVERSITY 
§§  59-62.]  Castner  Hanway.     John  Browi^ 

^ 


ings  in  an  old  carpenter's  shop.  At  night  they  sent  four  wagons 
indifferent  directions  as  decoys  for  the  detectives,  and  were 
earned  safely  away  by  a  fifth.  Many  negroes  hid  that  night  in 
the  corn  shocks,  and  under  the  floors  of  houses,  until  escape 
could  be  made  in  safety.1 

Castner  Hanway  was  arrested,  and  arraigned  before  the  United 
States  court  on  the  charge  of  treason  ;  but  no  proof  of  a  con 
spiracy  to  make  a  general  and  public  resistance  to  the  law  could 
be  found,  and  he  was  acquitted.  Afterward  it  was  desired  to  try 
Hanway  and  Lewis  for  "  riot  and  murder,"  but  the  grand  jury 
ignored  the  bill,  and  all  prisoners  were  released.  With  these 
prosecutions  the  end  of  the  affair  was  apparently  reached,  though 
perhaps  its  influence  may  be  traced  in  a  succeeding  case. 

§  61.  Miller  case  (i85l),  —  A  noted  kidnapper  from  Maryland, 
in  1851,  seized  a  free  negro  girl  living  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Miller, 
in  Nottingham,  Pennsylvania,  and  took  her  to  Baltimore.  Mr. 
Miller  followed  them,  and  succeeded  in  getting  her  freed.  He 
then  started  back,  but  never  reached  home.  Search  was  made, 
and  his  body  found  upon  the  way.  It  was  thought  that  the 
murder  was  committed  in  revenge  for  the  part  he  had  taken  in 
the  Christiana  riot.2 

§  62.  John  Brown  in  Kansas  (1858),  —  It  was  during  this  period 
also  that  John  Brown  was  endeavoring  to  put  into  execution  his 
famous  plan  for  freeing  the  slaves.  This  is  interesting,  not  only  as 
typical  of  organized  efforts  to  free  the  slaves  on  the  plantations,  but 
also  because  of  its  connection  with  other  phases  of  the  slavery  ques 
tion,  into  which  we  shall  not  attempt  to  enter  here.  His  idea  was 
first  to  gather  as  large  a  force  as  possible,  then,  when  his  men  were 
properly  drilled,  to  run  off  the  slaves  in  large  numbers  ;  to  retain 
the  brave  and  strong  in  the  mountains,  and  to  send  the  weak  and 
timid  to  the  North  by  the  "  Underground  Railroad."  3 

In  December,  1858,  Brown  divided  his  forces  into  two  divisions, 
and  went  into  Missouri.  Here  he  succeeded  in  freeing  eleven 
slaves,  and,  though  pursued  by  a  far  superior  number  of  Missou- 
rians,  took  them  safely  into  Kansas.  The  affair,  by  its  boldness, 
created  great  excitement  throughout  the  South.  The  Governor 
of  Missouri  offered  three  thousand  dollars  reward,  and  the  Presi- 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  49.  2  Appendix  D,  No.  50. 

3  Sanborn,  Life  and  Letters  of  John  Brown,  420  ;  Douglass,  Life  and  Times  of  John 
Brown,  279,  282. 


52  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Cases.  [Ch.  ill. 

dent  of  the  United  States  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  for 
Brown's  capture ;  within  a  very  short  time  he  had  succeed  A  in 
conveying  himself  and  his  eleven  fugitives  safely  into  Canada^md 
the  horses  which  he  had  appropriated  from  the  slaveholders  in 
order  to  carry  his  proteges  out  of  Kansas  were  afterward  publicly 
sold  by  him  in  Ohio.1 

1  Von  Hoist,  John  Brown,  104. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

FUGITIVES  AND    THEIR   FRIENDS. 

§  63.   Methods  of  escape. 

§  64.   Reasons  for  escape. 

§  65.   Conditions  of  slave  life. 

§  66.   Escapes  to  the  woods. 

§  67.    Escapes  to  the  North. 

§  68.    Use  of  protection  papers. 

§  69.   Fugitives  disguised  as  whites :  Craft  case. 
§  70.   Underground  Railroad. 

§  71.    Rise  and  growth  of  the  system. 

§  72.   Methods  pursued. 

§  73.   Colored  agents  of  the  Underground  Railroad. 

§  74.    Prosecutions  of  agents. 

§  75.    Formal  organization. 

§  76.   General  effect  of  escapes. 

§  63.  Methods  of  escape. -VThe  great  increase  in  the  number  of 
fugitives  after  1850  was  in  part  due  to  the  uneasiness  felt  by 
Northern  people  under  a  law  which  made  them  co-workers  with 
the  South  in  a  system  of  slave  hunting,  and  in  part  to  the  greater 
ease  of  communication  now  afforded  between  the  two  sections. 
The  knowledge  that  there  was  in  the  North  a  body  of  "  aboli 
tionists  "  eager  to  aid  them  from  bondage  to  freedom  was  also 
spreading  more  widely  each  day  among  the  slaves. 

Public  interest  in  the  subject  was  more  and  more  aroused,  not 
only  by  the  cases  of  cruelty  and  injustice  which  were  forcibly 
brought  to  the  attention  of  Northern  communities,  but  also  by 
the  romantic  and  thrilling  episodes  of  the  escapes.  To  under 
stand  the  attitude  of  the  North  toward  fugitives,  it  is  necessary  to 
examine  some  of  the  different  methods  used  by  the  fugitives  in  their 
flight.  Perhaps  a  better  point  of  view  than  that  of  the  outside 
observer  will  be  gained  by  placing  ourselves  in  the  position  of  the 
slave,  and  examining  his  motives  for  flight,  the  difficulties  which 
he  encountered  at  home,  the  manner  in  which  he  overcame  them, 
and,  finally,  the  various  paths  of  escape  then  open  to  him,  and  the 
agencies  which  befriended  him  and  forwarded  him  on  his  way. 

[53] 


54  .  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Methods.  [Ch.  iv. 

§  64.  Reasons  for  escape,  —  First,  why  did  the  slave  seek  to 
escape?  However  unlike  the  attending  circumstances,  we  And 
upon  investigation  that  the  negro's  desire  to  run  away  ma^Pbe 
traced  to  one  of  but  three  or  four  motives.  Among^tlt  'rnore 
intelligent  slaves,  who  could  comprehend  the  nature  and  "injustice 
their  position,  it  often  rose  solely  from  the  upspringing  in  their 
hearts  of  that  love  of  freedom  natural  to  all  men.  It  is  probable 
that  in  .the  greater  number  of  cases  this  was  the  motive  at  the  root 
of  the  matter.  A  fugitive,  on  being  questioned  at  an  Underground 
Railroad  station  as  to  his  reasons  for  escape,  replied  that  he  had 
had  a  kind  master,  plenty  to  eat  and  to  wear,  but  that  notwith 
standing  this  for  many  years  he  had  been  dissatisfied.  He  was 
thirsting-  for  freedom.1  Another  said  that  his  owner  had  always 
been  considerate,  and  even  indulgent  to  him.  He  left  for  no 
other  reason  than  simply  to  gain  his  liberty.2 

A  second  reason,  and  that  which  perhaps  most  frequently  led 

.them  to  take  the  decisive  step  in  this  often  long  premeditated  act, 

Nhvas  the  cruel  treatment  received  from  their  masters.     An  owner 

upon  one  of  the  Southern  plantations  said  his  slaves  usually  ran 

away  after  they  had  been  whipped,   or   something  had  occurred 

to  make  them  angry.3 

M  A  third  and  very  effective  cause  was  the  fear  of  being  sold 
South,  where  slave  life,  spent  in  toil  under  the  merciless  masters 
of  the  rice  swamps  and  cotton  fields,  was  seen  on  its  darkest  side. 
Such  was  the  horror  with  which  the  slave  regarded  this  change, 
that  the  threat  of  it  was  constantly  used  by  owners  as  one  of  the 
surest  means  of  reducing  their  rebellious  slaves  to  submission.  In 
the  Virginia  Slave  Mother's  Farewell  to  her  Daughters  who  have 
been  sold  into  Southern  bondage,  Whittier  has  well  expressed 
their  feelings.4 

1  Still,  Underground  Railroad,  410.  2  Ibid.,  444. 

8  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Journey  in  the  Back  Country,  49. 

4  "  Gone,  gone,  —  sold  and  gone 

To  the  rice  swamp  dank  and  lone,  — 
Where  the  slave-whip  ceaseless  swings, 
Where  the  noisome  insect  stings, 
Where  the  fever  demon  strews 
Poison  with  the  falling  dews, 
Where  the  sickly  sunbeams  glare 
Through  the  hot  and  misty  air, — 

Gone,  gone,  —  sold  and  gone 

To  the  rice  swamp  dank  and  lone 


§§  64-65.]  Reasons  for  Escape.  5  5 

Many  cases  of  this  kind  came  to  light  through  the  examinations  at 
the  ^nderground  Railroad  stations.  Three  brothers  once  learned 
thaMie  next  day  they  were  to  be  sent  South  with  a  slave  trader  then 
in  the  wcinity.  Filled  with  terror  at  the  prospect,  they  preferred 
the  danger  of  death  in  the  swamps  to  the  certainty  of  life  in  the 
unknown  country.  That  night  they  made  their  escape,  but  it  was 
only  after  weeks  of  wandering  in  swamps  and  morasses  that  they 
reached  a  haven.1 

So  long' as  a  black  family  remained  together  upon  one  planta 
tion,  their  l$v>e  for  one  another  operated  as  the  strongest  bond  to 
prevent  their  departure ;  but  when,  as  constantly  happened,  the 
sale  and  separation  of  the  members  scattered  families  far  and  wide, 
with  no  hope  of  reunion,  the  firmest  and  often  the  sole  tie  which 
bound  them  to  the  South  was  broken.  There  was  no  longer  any 
thing  to  hold  them  back.2 

§  65.  Conditions  of  slave  life.  —  These  are  some  of  the  motives 
which  led  the  slave  to  plan  an  escape.  It  will  now  be  well  to 
glance  at  those  surrounding  conditions,  incident  to  the  time  and 
country,  which  made  successful  flight  particularly  difficult.  First, 
the  slave  was  a  negro ;  and  in  the  South,  where  the  presumption 
was  that  every  black  man  must  be  a  slave,  the  color  of  his  skin 
gave  not  only  a  means  of  tracing  him,  but  also  made  him  liable  at 
any  moment  to  questioning  and  arrest. 

In  both  city  and  country  patrols  were  appointed,  whose  duty 
it  was  to  keep  strict  watch  over  the  negroes ;  and  any  slave  found 
away  from  his  plantation,  unless  in  livery  or  provided  with  a  pass, 

From  Virginia's  hills  and  waters,  — 
Woe  is  me,  my  stolen  daughters ! 

"There  no  mother's  eye  is  near  them, 

There  no  mother's  ear  can  hear  them ; 

Never,  when  the  torturing  lash 

Seams  their  back  with  many  a  gash, 
nShall  a  mother's  kindness  bless  them, 

Or  a  mother's  arms  caress  them.  .  .  . 

"  Oh,  when  weary,  sad,  and  slow 
From  the  fields  at  night  they  go, 
Faint  with  toil,  and  racked  with  pain, 
To  their  cheerless  homes  again,  — 
There  no  brother's  voice  shall  greet  them 
There  no  father's  welcome  meet  them." 

1  Still,  Underground  Railroad,  443.  2  Ibid.,  448. 


56  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Methods.  [Ch.  iv. 

could  be  whipped  and  sent  back  to  his  master.1  It  was  also  law 
ful  for  any  white  man  to  seize  and  carry  a  stray  slave  to  the  rArest 
jail.2  The  next  morning,  if  not  claimed,  he  was  advertisecr  in  a 
manner  of  which  the  following  is  an  example :  — 

"Was  taken  up  and  committed  to  the  jail  of  Halifax  Co.,  on  the  26th 
day  of  May,  a  dark  colored  boy  who  says  his  name  is  Jordan  Artis ;  said 
boy  says  he  was  born  free,  and  bound  out  to  Mr.  Beale,  near  Murfreesboro, 
Hartford  Co.,  N.  C.,  and  is  now  twenty-one  years  of  age.  Owner  is  re 
quested  to  come  forward,  prove  property,  pay  charges,  and  take  said  boy 
away  within  time  prescribed  by  law,  otherwise  he  will  be  dealt  with  as  the 
law  directs. 

"O.  P.  SHELL,  Jailer. 

"Halifax  Co.,  N.  C,  June  8,  1855."  3 

If  not  claimed  within  one  year,  such  a  prisoner  could  be  sold 
by  the  jailer.  Thus  Olmsted  remarks  that  "  the  security  of  the 
whites  is  not  so  much  dependent  upon  patrols,  as  on  the  con 
stant,  habitual,  and  instinctive  surveillance  and  authority  of  all 
white  people  over  the  blacks."4 

§  66.  Escapes  to  the  woods.  —  If  an  opportunity  for  escape  should 
present  itself,  the  first  question  for  the  slave  was,  "  In  what  direc 
tion  shall  I  turn?"  Many  slaves  knew  nothing  of  the  Northern 
people,  or  had  heard  of  Canada  only  as  a  cold,  barren,  uninviting 
country,  where  the  negro  must  perish.  ^To  those  who  had  neither 
the  courage  nor  the  knowledge  requisite  for  a  long  journey,  the 
woods  and  swamps  near  by  offered  the  only  refuge. \  There  they 
built  cabins,  or  lived  in  caves,  and  got  food  by  hunting  and  fish 
ing,  and  by  raids  upon  the  neighboring  plantations. 

In  one  of  the  papers  of  the  day  an  underground  den  is  noticed, 
the  opening  of  which,  though  in  sight  of  two  or  three1  houses,  and 
near  roads  and  fields,  where  passing  was  constant,  had  been  so 
concealed  by  a  pile  of  straw,  that  for  many  months  it  had  remained 
unnoticed.  When  discovered,  on  opening  a  trap-door,  steps  were 
seen  leading  down  into  a  room  about  six  feet  square,  comfortably 
ceiled  with  boards,  and  containing  a  fire-place.  The  den  was  well 
stocked  with  food  by  the  occupants,  who  had  been  missing  about 
a  year.5 

1  Williams,  History  of  the  Negro  Race  in  America,  293. 

2  Still,  Underground  Railroad,  27. 

3  F.  L.  Olmsted,  The  Cotton  Kingdom,  157. 

4  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Journey  in  the  Back  Country,  444, 

5  W.  I.  Bowditch,  Slavery  and  the  Constitution  ;   Macon  (Ga.)  Telegram,  Nov.  27. 
1838. 


§§65-67.]  Escapes  to  the  North.  57 

In  most  cases  slaves  were  not  so  bold,  and  preferred  conceal- 
menMon  an  uninhabited  island,  or  a  bit  of  land  surrounded  by 
morasses.  We  often  find  advertisements  of  the  time,  mentioning 
such  places  as  the  probable  refuge  of  runaways.  The  Savannah 
Georgian  of  1839  offers  a  reward  for  two  men  who  have  been  out 
for  eighteen  months,  arlcf  arek^ppbsed  to  be  encamped  in  a  swamp 
near  Pine  Grove  Plantation. 

\/fn  the  Great  Dismal  Swamp,  which  extends  from  near  Norfolk, 
Virginia,  into  North  Carolina,  a  large  colony  of  these  fugitive  ne 
groes  was  established,  and  so  long  was  the  custom  continued  that 
children  were  born,  grew  up,  and  lived  their  whole  lives  in  its  dark 
recesses.  ^Besides  their  hunting  and  fishing,  they  sometimes  ob 
tained  food  and  money,  in  return  for  work,  from  the  poor  whites 
and  the  negroes  who  had  homes  on  the  borders  of  the  swamp.  It 
was  this  practice  of  remaining  out  near  home  which,  under  easy 
masters,  brought  about  the  habitual  runaways,  —  men  who  were 
constantly  escaping,  and  after  a  little  time  returning,  often  of  their 
own  accord.1  One  of  his  masters  said  of  William  Browne,  afterward 
a  well  known  speaker  upon  slavery,  that  he  hesitated  some  time 
before  he  invested  seven  hundred  dollars  in  William,  for  he  was 
"a  noted  runaway."2  Again,  in  a  Southern  paper  advertising  a 
sale  of  slaves,  one  description  is  thus  given:  "  Number  47,  Daniel, 
a  runaway,  but  has  not  run  away  during  the  last  two  years,  aged 
28  years."3 

§  67.  Escapes  to  the  North.  —  Of  those  who,  with  heroic  hearts 
and  firm  courage,  determined  to  reach  even  Canada,  many  had 
seldom  left  the  plantation  on  which  they  were  born,  and  were  so 
completely  ignorant  of  geography  and  relative  distances,  that  the 
best  and  quickest  way  northward  could  seldom  be  chosen.  They 
knew  nothing  of  the  facilities  for  communication  possessed  by 
their  masters  through  newspapers  and  telegraph,  and  would  often 
fancy  themselves  safe  when  they  had  travelled  but  a  short  distance 
from  home.  In  reality,  the  white  people  about  were  often  fully 
informed  against  them,  and  arrests  were  almost  sure  to  follow.4 

The  journeys  of  the  fugitives  were  necessarily  long,  since  un- 

1  Ball,  Mammoth  Pictorial  Tour  of  United  States,  54;   F.  L.  Olmsted,  Journey 
in  the  Back  Country,  155. 

2  W.  I.  Bowditch,  Slavery  and  the  Constitution ;  Macon  (Ga.)  Telegram,  Nov.  27, 
1838. 

3  Liberator,  April  12,  1839. 

4  Wm.    Parker,    Freedman's   Story,  in  Atlantic   Monthly,  February  and  March, 
1866;  Letter  from  Gerrit  Smith,  in  Liberator,  Dec.  28,  1838. 


58  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Methods.  [Ch.  iv. 

frequented  ways  were  generally  chosen,  and  but  part  of  the  day 
could  be  used.  There  is  a  record  of  a  man  who  had  "  tAen  a 
whole  year  in  coming  from  Alabama  to  Cincinnati.  He  haa  trav 
elled  only  in  the  night,  hiding  in  the  woods  during  the  day.  He 
had  nothing  to  eat  but  what  he  could  get  from  the  fields,  some 
times  finding  a  chicken,  green  corn,  or  perhaps  a  small  pig."  1 

Although  the  methods  pursued  were  innumerable,  and  varied 
from  those  of  the  man  whose  only  guide  was  the  north  star,  to 
those  of  the  party  aided  onward  by  the  most  elaborate  arrange 
ments  of  the  Underground  Railroad,  the  fugitive  was  obliged  to 
follow  one  of  two  great  routes,  by  water  or  by  land.  From  the 
earliest  times  the  ship  had  been  a  favorite  refuge.  Once  on  board 
a  craft  bound  to  a  Northern  port,  the  fugitive  was  almost  certain  of 
reaching  that  destination,  and,  once  arrived,  could  hope  for  pro 
tection  from  the  Northern  friends  of  whom  vague  rumors  had 
penetrated  the  South.  New  laws,  therefore,  bore  more  and  more 
heavily  upon  captains  wlto  should  be  found  guilty  of  harboring 
a  slave,  and  many  cases  were  made  public  of  cruel  treatment 
experienced  by  slaves  at  the  hands  of  captains  who  sent  them  di 
rectly  back.  Nevertheless,  escapes  on  shipboard  still  occurred  fre 
quently  through  the  years  of  slavery.  A  method  commonly  used 
by  women  in  getting  on  board  was  to  disarm  suspicion  by  appear 
ing  to  be  carrying  some  freshly  laundered  clothes  to  the  sailors. 

§  68.  Use  of  protection  papers.  —  Another  method  called  for  less 
v  physical  effort  on  the  part  of  the  fugitive,  but  for  greater  coolness. 
Alt  was  simply  to  procure  from  some  freeman  his  protection  papers, 
and  to  show  them  whenever  necessary  to  disarm  suspicion.     As 
the  descriptions  could  seldom  be  made  to  agree,  both  giver  and 
receiver  were  placed  in  situations  of  the  greatest  risk.     It  was  thus, 
however,  that  Frederick  Douglass  travelled  in  the  most  open  man 
ner  from  Baltimore  to  New  York,  and  escaped  from  a  bondage  to 
which  he  never  afterward  returned.2 

§69.  Fugitives  disguised  as  whites:  Craft  case.  —  Sometimes  the 
boldest  plans  succeeded  best  if  supported  by  sufficient  firmness 
and  presence  of  mind.  Three  negroes  possessed  of  a  considerable 
sum  of  money  once  determined  upon  a  plan,  startling  in  its  sim 
plicity  and  success.  They  hired  a  good  travelling  coach  and 
horses.  They  then  bribed  a  white  beggar  to  dress  as  a  Virginian 

1  J.  F.  Clarke,  Antislavery  Days,  93. 

2  Life  and  Times  of  Frederick  Douglass,  196. 


§§67-69.].  Fugitives  disguised  as   Whites.  59 

gentleman,  while  they  mounted  the  coach  as  his  driver  and  footmen ; 
and  in^his  guise  they  successfully  made  their  way  into  Canada.1 

Another  example  of  unconcealed  flight  is  found  in  the  often  told 
story  of  the  escape  of  William  and  Ellen  Craft,  in  1848.  They 
lived  in  Macon,  Georgia,  and  were  generally  well  treated.  But 
Ellen  had  been  compelled  to  go  North  with  her  mistress,  and  leave 
her  little  child  at  home;  during  this  absence,  the  child  died  un- 
cared  for.  From  that  time  she  determined  to  escape.2 

William  at  last  arranged  a  plan  which  was  successfully  carried 
out.  Ellen  was  nearly  white.  She  personated  a  young  Southern 
planter,  while  William  accompanied  her  as  her  servant.  She 
carried  her  right  arm  in  a  sling  so  that  she  might  not  be  expected 
to  write,  bandaged  her  smooth  face,  and  put  on  a  pair  of  green  gog 
gles.  Thus  disguised,  she  succeeded  in  buying  tickets  for  herself 
and  servant  without  discovery.  In  the  train  she  was  terrified  to 
see  a  gentleman  who  had  known  her  from  childhood.  He  even 
sat  down  by  her,  and  spoke,  but  to  her  great  relief,  he  saw  in  her 
only  a  young  invalid  going  North  for  his  health.  From  Savannah 
they  took  a  steamer  to  Charleston.  There  they  had  some  diffi 
culty  in  passing  inspection,  but  their  most  dangerous  stopping 
place  was  Baltimore,  where  every  white  man  with  a  slave  was 
required  to  prove  his  right  of  property  before  he  could  be 
allowed  to  go  on  to  Philadelphia.  After  some  conversation  Ellen 
told  the  officer  that  she  knew  no  one  in  Baltimore,  and  had  no 
proofs  that  William  was  her  slave ;  but  that  he  was  necessary  to  her 
on  account  of  her  illness,  and  she  must  take  him  on.  The  officer 
finally  relented,  as  the  train  was  about  to  start,  and  Baltimore  was 
safely  passed. 

At  Philadelphia  shelter  was  found  among  the  Quakers,  and 
thence  they  pushed  on  to  Boston.  Here  they  engaged  the  at 
tention  of  Theodore  Parker,  and  he  protected  them  during  their 
stay.  William  took  up  his  trade  of  cabinet-making,  while  Ellen 
added  to  their  income  by  sewing.  They  lived  thus  quietly  until 
the  passage  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  in  1850.  From  that  time,  to 
remain  even  in  Boston  was  hazardous.  Soon  after,  there  appeared 
one  day  in  William's  shop  a  man  who  had  worked  with  him  in  the 
South.  He  immediately  suspected  the  presence  of  others,  and  took 
refuge  among  friends.  For  two  weeks  Ellen  was  with  Mr.  Parker, 

1  Appendix  P,  No.  41 ;  Antislavery  Almanac,  74. 

2  J.  F.  Clarke,  Antislavery  Days,  83. 


60  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Methods.  [Ch.  iv. 

who  wrote  his  sermons  during  her  stay  with  his  sword  in  a  drawer 
under  his  inkstand,  and  a  pistol  in  his  desk.  A 

They  were  then  taken  to  Mr.  Ellis  Gray  Loring's  home.  Here 
William  showed  a  most  honorable  spirit.  When  he  found  Mr. 
Loring  was  not  at  home  he  would  not  remain,  saying,  "  I  am  sub 
jecting  him  to  a  heavy  fine  and  imprisonment,  and  I  must  go  at 
once  to  look  for  some  other  shelter." 

His  pursuers,  who  had  come  from  Georgia,  were  staying  at  the 
United  States  Hotel.  The  knowledge  of  their  object  was  soon 
spread  abroad,  and  they  dared  not  go  into  the  streets  for  fear  of  a 
mob.  Handbills,  calling  attention  to  them,  were  placed  every 
where,  and  cries  of  "  Slave  hunters !  there  go  the  slave  hunters !  " 
were  heard  on  all  sides.  At  last,  they  were  absolutely  compelled 
to  leave  the  city.  William  and  Ellen  no  longer  felt  safe,  and 
therefore  went  to  England,  where  the  remainder  of  their  life  was 
spent  in  peace.1 

§  70.  Underground  Railroad.  —  From  the  preceding  sketch  of  the 
conditions  of  escape,  it  is  plain  that  no  such  numbers  as  are  known 
to  have  fled  could  possibly  have  escaped  from  their  masters' 
power  had  they  depended  solely  upon  their  own  exertions.  From 
the  beginning  of  the  antislavery  agitation,  about  1830,  and  espe 
cially  near  1850,  a  mysterious  organization  made  it  a  business  to 
receive,  forward,  conceal,  "and  protect  fugitives.  To  that  organiza 
tion  the  name  of  "  Underground  Railroad "  was  given,  and  the 
many  methods  used  by  those  connected  with  it  can  best  be  given 
under  a  more  elaborate  description  of  the  system. 

§  71.  Rise  and  growth  of  the  system.  — The  first  efforts  toward1 
any  systematic  organization  for  the  aid  and  protection  of  fugitive 
slaves  are  found  among  the  Quakers  in  Pennsylvania.  The  great 
number  of  cases  of  kidnapping  which  occurred  in  this  State  after 
the  passage  of  the  law  of  1793,  by  their  injustice  roused  people  to 
action  in  behalf  of  the  free  blacks;  and,  their  sympathies  once 
enlisted  for  the  colored  race,  it  was  but  a  step  to  the  aid  of  the 
fugitive  negroes.2  From  this  time,  as  the  number  of  runaways 
increased,  new  agencies  were  constantly  being  established,  until 
from  the  slave  States  to  Canada  a  perfect  chain  of  stations  was 
arranged,  not  more  than  one  day's  journey  apart.3  The  system  is 

1  Appendix  D,  No.  41. 

2  Smedley,  The  Underground  Railroad,  26. 

3  Lalor's  Cyclopaedia,  I.  5  ;   Williams,    History  of  the   Negro   Race  in  America, 
II.  58,  59- 


§§69-72.]  The  Underground  Railroad.  61 

said  to  have  extended  from  Kentucky  and  Virginia  across  Ohio, 
and  fram  Maryland,  through  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  to 
New  England  and  Canada.1 

As  negroes  began  to  disappear,  and  their  masters  found  them 
selves  unable  to  trace  them  farther  than  certain  towns  in  Pennsyl 
vania,  they  said,  in  bewilderment,  "  There  must  be  an  Underground 
Railroad  somewhere,"  and  this  expression,  suiting  the  popular 
fancy,  became  the  general  name  by  which  the  whole  system  was 
known.2  * 

§'72.  Methods  pursued. —  Although  often  varied  by  circumstances, 
the  general  method  of  work  was  always  the  same.  In  the  South, 
money  was  usually  the  motive,  and  for  its  sake  the  managers  of 
the  Railroad  could  usually  get  some  one  to  aid  a  slave  in  escaping 
and  crossing  the  line.  In  the  North  it  was  an  unselfish,  and  some 
times  dangerous,  work  of  charity. 

Fugitives  arrived  at  the  first  station,  ignorant,  half-clothed,  and 
hungry.  There  they  were  fed,  and,  in  order  to  elude  the  adver 
tisements  sent  through  the  States,  disguises  were  provided.  For 
women,  the  large  veiled  bonnet  and  plain  attire  of  the  Quakeress 
proved  one  of  the  best  costumes.  The  men  received  a  slip  of 
paper,  with  a  word  or  two  which  would  be  recognized  at  the  next 
place,  and,  unless  special  caution  was  needed,  were  sent  forward  on 
foot.  Women  and  children  were  often  taken  in  close  carriages, 
sometimes  constructed'for  this  special  purpose.3 

Stations,  that  is,  the  houses  of  persons  known  to  be  interested, 
were  reached  between  sunset  and  ten  o'clock  in  the  evening.  A 
tap  at  the  door  would  rouse  some  member  of  the  family,  and  the 
fugitive  would  be  taken  to  the  barn,  or  some  place  of  conceal 
ment.4  Often,  too,  these  houses  were  not  merely  places  for  a 
night's  tarrying,  but  homes  where  the  ill  and  fatigued  might  remain 
and  be  cared  for  until  strong  enough  for  the  onward  journey.5 

To  conduct  people  over  this  long  line,  and  to  baffle  all  plans  of 
their  pursuers,  required  quick  wit,  as  well  as  great  courage  and  cool 
ness.6  So  successful  were  the  conductors  in  this  respect,  however, 
that  a  discouraged  slave  hunter,  after  a  fruitless  search,  once  said  it 
was-  "  as  easy  to  find  a  needle  in  a  haymow  as  a  negro  among 
Quakers."7 

1  Clarke,  Antislavery  Days,  81. 

2  Smedley,  The  Underground  Railroad,  35.  8  Ibid.,  64,  138. 
4  Ibid.,  568-570.                             5  Ibid.,  172.                        e  Ibid.,  34. 

7  Ibid.,  146. 


62  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Methods.  [Ch.  iv. 

When  fugitives  were  concealed,  and  persons  desiring  to  search 
the  house  appeared,  it  was  the  custom  to  receive  the  searchers  cour- 
,  teously.  One  of  the  family  immediately  engaged  them  in  conver 
sation,  and  offered  them  refreshments.  The  hunt  was  thus  delayed 
as  long  as  possible,  so  that  the  fugitive  might  be  helped  away.  In 
one  case,  while  the  slave's  master  was  thus  entertained  upon  the 
front  piazza,  the  mistress  of  the  house  quietly  conveyed  the  hunted 
negro  out  at  the  back  door,  and  placed  him  under  an  inverted  hogs 
head  standing  by.  Then,  with  the  most  unconcerned  manner,  she 
allowed  the  man  to  search  until  he  was  satisfied  that  there  could  be 
no  fugitive  in  that  house.1 

§  73.  Colored  agents  of  the  Underground  Railroad.  —  An  example 
of  the  most  courageous  and  successful  action  may  be  found  in  the 
life  of  Harriet  Tubman,2  who  when  a  young  girl  made  her  escape 
from  slavery  alone  and  unassisted.  After  several  years  of  work  in 
the  North,  she  determined  to  go  back  for  her  family.  This  trip  was 
safely  accomplished,  and  followed  by  others,  until  during  her  life 
she  had  made  nineteen  journeys,  never  losing  a  person.  The 
Rev.  James  Freeman  Clarke  gives  the  following  account  of  her 
methods  :  — 

"  She  said  she  first  obtained  enough  money,  then  went  to  Mary 
land,  where  she  privately  collected  a  party  of  slaves  and  got  them 
ready  to  start.  She  satisfied  herself  that  they  had  enough  courage 
and  firmness  to  run  the  risks.  For  if  once  a  negro  entered  her 
party,  there  was  no  falling  back.  Fully  determined  herself,  she 
would  allow  no  one  to  return. 

"  She  next  made  arrangements  so  that  they  should  set  out 
Saturday  night,  as  there  would  be  no  opportunity  on  Sunday  for 
advertising  them,  so  that  they  had  that  day's  start  on  their  way 
North.  Then  she  had  places  prepared  where  she  could  be  sure 
that  they  could  be  protected  and  taken  care  of,  if  she  had  the 
money  to  pay  for  that  protection.  When  she  was  at  the  North, 
she  tried  to  raise  funds  until  she  got  a  certain  amount,  and  then 
went  South  to  carry  out  this  plan.  She  always  paid  some  colored 
man  to  follow  after  the  person  who  put  up  the  posters  advertising 
the  runaway,  and  pull  them  down  as  fast  as  they  were  put  up."3 

When  she  feared  the  party  were  closely  pursued,  she  would  take 
them  for  a  time  on  a  train  southward  bound,  as  no  one  seeing  a 

*  Smedley,  Underground  Railroad,  58.  2  Harriet,  the  Moses  of  her  People. 

8  Clarke,  Antislavery  Days,  Si. 


§§72-75-1  Operations  "  Underground"  63 

company  of  negroes  going  in  this  direction  would  for  an  instant 
suppose  the'm  to  be  fugitives.  As  their  leader  out  of  bondage, 
her  people  gave  her  the  name  of  "  Moses,"  and  thus  she  is  gener 
ally  know,,n. 

§  74.  Prosecutions  of  agents.  —  Such  acts  as  those  daily  performed 
by  the  conductors  on  the  Underground  Railroad  could  not  be 
carried  on  under  the  existing  laws  without  leading  to  prosecutions. 
Large  rewards  were  many  times  offered  for  Harriet's  capture,  but 
she  eluded  all  efforts  to  stop  her  work.  At  one  time  the  Mary 
land  legislature  offered  a  reward  to  any  person  who  should  secure 
Thomas  Garrett  in  any  public  jail  in  the  State.  He  was  a  Dela 
ware  Quaker,  who,  it  is  said,  helped  twenty-nine  hundred  slaves 
in  escaping.  The  Governor  was  required  to  employ  the  best  legal 
skill  to  prosecute  him  on  the  charge  of  aiding  runaways.1  He 
was  afterward  tried  and  fined  a  sum  which  consumed  his  entire 
property.  As  this  was  paid,  the  officer  who  received  it  said  that 
he  hoped  the  remembrance  of  this  punishment  would  prevent 
any  further  trouble.  Mr.  Garrett,  undaunted,  replied  that  they 
had  taken  all  that  he  possessed,  but  added,  "  If  thee  knows  any 
poor  fugitive  who  wants  a  breakfast,  send  him  to  me."  2  In  fact,  he 
seemed  absolutely  fearless.  Angry  slaveholders  often  called  upon 
him,  and  demanded  their  property.  He  never  denied  knowledge 
of  their  slaves,  or  of  having  helped  them  on  their  way,  but,  in  the 
most  quiet  manner,  positively  refused  to  give  information  con 
cerning  them.3 

§  75.  Formal  organization.  —  In  1838  the  first  formal  organiza 
tion  of  the  Underground  Railroad  was  made,  with  Robert  Purvis 
as  President.  It  was  said  that  two  marketwomen  in  Baltimore 
were  their  best  helpers.  They  had  come  into  possession  of  a 
number  .of  passports,  or  "  freedoms,"  which  were  used  by  slaves 
for  part  of  the  distance,  and  then  were  returned  to  serve  the  same 
purpose  again.4 

In  all  transactions  connected  with  this  organization  the  greatest 
secrecy  was  necessarily  observed,  seldom  more  than  two  or  three 
persons  at  a  station  being  allowed  any  knowledge  of  it.  In  the 
Liberator  of  1843,  a  notice  is  found  cautioning  people  against 
exposing  in  any  way  the  methods  used  by  fugitives  in  escaping,  as 

1  Liberator,  March  2,  1860. 

2  Pamphlet  proposing  a  Defensive  League  of  Freedom,  6. 

8  Smedley,  Underground  Railroad,  241.  *  Ibid.,  355. 


64  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Methods.  [Ch.  iv. 

it  only  helped  the  pursuers  in  the  next  case.  The  fugitives  them 
selves  were  usually  careful  in  this  respect.  Frederick  Douglass 
absolutely  refused  until  after  the  abolition  of  slavery  to  reveal 
the  method  of  his  escape.1 

Mrs.  G.  S.  Hillard,  of  Boston,  was  in  the  habit  of  putting  fugi 
tives  in  an  upper  room  of  her  house.  A  colored  man  was  placed 
there,  and  when  Mrs.  Hillard  went  up  to  see  him,  she  found  he 
had  carefully  pulled  down  all  the  shades  at  the  windows.  She  told 
him  that  there  was  no  danger  of  his  being  seen  from  the  street. 
"  Perhaps  not,  Missis,"  he  replied,  "  but  I  do  not  want  to  spoil 
the  place."  He  was  afraid  lest  some  one  might  see  a  colored  face 
there,  and  so  excite  suspicions  injurious  to  the  next  man.2 

§  76.  General  effect  of  escapes.  —  Although  many  fugitives  were 
aided  previous  to  1850,  it  was  after  the  new  law  went  into  effect 
that  the  great  efforts  of  the  Abolitionists  were  centred  on  this 
form  of  assistance.  Of  such  importance  did  it  become,  that  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Civil  War  one  of  the  chief  complaints  of  the 
Southern  States  was  the  injury  received  through  the  aid  given 
their  escaping  slaves  by  the  North.3 

It  was,  however,  really  the  "  safety  valve  to  the  institution  of 
slavery.  As  soon  as  leaders  arose  among  the  slaves  who  refused 
to  endure  the  yoke,  they  would  go  North.  Had  they  remained, 
there  must  have  been  enacted  at  the  South  the  direful  scenes  of 
San  Domingo."  * 

1  Douglass,  My  Bondage  and  Freedom,  323. 

2  J.  F.  Clarke,  Antislavery  Days,  83. 

8  Lalor's  Cyclopaedia,  I.  5;  Congressional  Globe,  36  Cong.  I  Sess.,  Appendix,  250. 
4  Williams,  History  of  the  Negro  Race  in  America,  II.  58,  59. 


CHAPTER    V. 

PERSONAL   LIBERTY  LAWS. 

§  77.  Character  of  the  personal  liberty  laws. 

§  78.   Acts  passed  before  the  Prigg  decision  (1793-1842). 

§  79.   Acts  passed  between  the  Prigg  decision  and  the  second  Fugitive  Slave 

Law  (1842-1850). 

§  80.   Acts  occasioned  by  the  law  of  1850  (1850-1860). 
§  81.   Massachusetts  acts. 
§  82.   Review  of  the  acts  by  States. 
§  83.   Effect  of  the  personal  liberty  laws. 

§  77.  Character  of  the  personal  liberty  laws.  —  The  personal  lib 
erty  laws  were  statutes  passed  in  the  Northern  States  whose  ob 
ject  was  to  defeat  in  some  measure  the  national  Fugitive  Slave 
Law.  Often  their  ostensible  purpose  was  to  protect  the  free  ne 
groes  from  kidnappers,  and  to  this  end  they  secured  for  the  alleged 
fugitive  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  the  trial 
by  jury.  Sometimes,  however,  they  frankly  avowed  their  aim  as 
a  deliberate  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  execution  of  the  United 
States  statutes..  In  the  following  examination  of  these  laws,  they 
will  be  considered  first  chronologically,  and  afterward  more  mi 
nutely  according  to  their  subject  matter.  In  previous  chapters 
we  have  noticed  many  instances  whereirv  fugitives  have  been  be 
friended  by  individuals,  or  by  organizations  like  the  Antislavery 
Societies  or  the  Underground  Railroad.  But  the  action  of  the 
State  governments  in  the  personal  liberty  bills,  from  the  time  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1793  began  to  be  executed  to  the  outbreak 
of  the  Civil  War,  showed  that  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  North  was 
fundamental,  and  Ttfas  not  confined  merely  to  the  few  in  the  van  of 
the  Antislavery  movement. 

§  78.  Acts  passed  before  the  Prigg  decision  (1793-1842).  —  Although 
the  so-called  personal  liberty  laws  were  not  passed  until  about 
1840,  Indiana1  and  Connecticut2  had  before  that  time  provided 
that  on  appeal  fugitives  might  have  a  trial  by  jury.  The  Con 
necticut  law,  in  contrast  to  the  hostile  spirit  of  later  legislation,  was 

1  Revised  Laws  of  Indiana,  1824,  p.  221.  2  Laws  of  Connecticut,  1838,  p.  32. 

[65] 


66  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Liberty  Bills.  [Ch.  iv. 

entitled,  "  An  Act  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  obligation  of  this  State 
imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to 
persons  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State  escaping  into  an 
other,  and  to  secure  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  in  the  cases  herein 
mentioned."  Notwithstanding  this  preamble,  the  law  provided  for 
fining  State  officials  who  might  take  part  in  fugitive  slave  cases. 

The  first  definite  personal  liberty  laws  were  passed  by  Ver 
mont1  and  New  York,2  in  1840,  and  were  entitled  Acts  "to  ex 
tend  the  right  of  trial  by  jury."  They  not  only  insured  jury  trial, 
but  also  provided  attorneys  to  defend  fugitives.  This  was  the 
only  law  of  the  kind  New  York  ever  passed,  and  proved  of  little 
value,  since  it  soon  fell  into  disuse,  and  was  almost  forgotten. 

§  79.  Acts  passed  between  the  Prigg  decision  and  the  second  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  (1842-1850).  —  After  the  Prigg  decision  in  1842,  wherein 
ft  was  declared  that  the  law  must  be  executed  through  national 
powers  only,  and  that  State  authorities  could  not  be  forced  into 
action,3  a  new  class  of  statutes  sprang  up.  The  State  legislatures 
seized  the  opportunity  afforded  them  by  Judge  Story's  opinion, 
to  forbid  State  officers  from  performing  the  duties  required  of 
them  by  the  law  of  1793,  and  prohibited  the  use  of  State  jails 
in  fugitive  slave  cases.  Such  laws  were  passed  in  Massachusetts,4 
Vermont,5  Pennsylvania,6  and  Rhode  Island.7  In  1844,  Connecti 
cut  repealed  her  act  of  1838,  as  being  then  unconstitutional,  but 
retained  the  portion  forbidding  State  officers  to  participate  in  the 
execution  of  the  law. 

§  80.  Acts  occasioned  by  the  law  of  1850  (1850-1860).  —  The  pro 
visions  of  the  law  of  1850  roused  yet  more  opposition  in  the 
North,  and  before  1856  many  of  the  States  had  passed  personal 
liberty  bills.  The  new  national  law  avoided  the  employment  of 
State  officers.  This  change  in  the  statute  brought  about  a  cor 
responding  alteration  in  the  State  legislation,  and  we  therefore 
find  the  acts  of  this  period  differing  somewhat  from  those  of 
earlier  years.  They  almost  invariably  prohibited  the  use  of  State 
jails,  they  often  forbade  State  judges  and  officers  to  issue  writs  or 
to  give  assistance  to  the  claimant,  and  punished  severely  the  seiz 
ure  of  a  free  person  with  the  intent  to  reduce  him  to  slavery. 

1  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Vermont,  1840,  p.  13.      2  Laws  of  New  York,  1840,  p.  174. 
8  See  ante,  §  27.  4  Laws  of  Massachusetts,  1843,  p.  33. 

5  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Vermont,  1843,  p.  n. 

6  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  1847,  p.  206. 

7  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Rhode  Island,  1848,  p.  12. 


§§  78-8 1.  Analysis.  67 

Should  an  alleged  fugitive  be  arrested,  the  personal  liberty  acts 
were  intended  to  secure  him  a  trial  surrounded  by  the  usual  legal 
safeguards.  The  identity  of  the  person  claimed  was  to  be  proved 
by  two  witnesses ;  or  they  gave  him  the  right  to  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus;  or  they  enjoined  upon  the  court  to  which  the  writ  was 
returnable  a  trial  by  jury.  At  the  trial  the  prisoner  must  be 
defended  by  an  attorney^JVequently  the  State  or  county  attorney, 
and  a  penalty  was  provided  for  false  testimony.  Any  violation  of 
these  clauses  by  State  officers  was  punished  by  penalties  varying 
from  five  hundred  dollars  and  six  months  in  jail,  as  in  Pennsyl 
vania,  to  the  maximum  punishment  in  Vermont,  of  two  thousand 
dollars'  fine  and  ten  years  in  prison. 

Such  acts  were  passed  in  Vermont,1  Connecticut,2  and  Rhode 
Island,3  in  Massachusetts,4  Michigan,5  and  Maine.6  Later,  laws 
were  also  enacted  in  Wisconsin,7  Kansas,7  Ohio,8  and  Pennsylva 
nia.7  Of  the  other  Northern  States,  two  only,  New  Jersey  and 
California,  gave  any  official  sanction  to  the  rendition  of  fugitives. 
In  New  Hampshire,  New  York,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa,  and  Min 
nesota,  however,  no  full  personal  liberty  laws  were  passed.9 

§  Si.  Massachusetts  acts.  —  Let  us  now  examine  the  purport  of 
these  acts  in  the  various  States.  The  general  tenor  and  effect  are 
best  seen  in  Massachusetts,  which  may  be  selected  as  a  typical 

,  1  Laws  of  Vermont,  1850,  p.  9. 
2  Public  Acts  of  Connecticut,  1854,  p.  So. 
8  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1854,  p.  22. 
*  Laws  of  Massachusetts,  1855,  p.  924;  1858,  p.  151. 

5  Laws  of  Michigan,  1855,  p.  415. 

6  Laws  of  Maine,  1857,  p.  38.  "  Lalor,  III.  162. 

8  Laws  of  Ohio,  1857,  p.  170;  1858,  p.  10. 

9  The  following  tabulation   shows  the  provisions  of   the   personal   liberty  laws  as 
distributed  among  the  States  :  — 

Judges  and  justices  forbidden  to  take  cognizance.  Massachusetts,  1843  >  Vermont,  1843  '•> 
Connecticut,  1838:  Rhode  Island,  1854;  Maine,  1855,  Pennsylvania,  1847. 

Writ  of  habeas  corpus.  Massachusetts,  1855,  Michigan,  1855,  Maine,  1857,  Con 
necticut,  1838  and  1814. 

Jury  trial.  Indiana,  1824;  New  York,  1840;  Vermont,  1840,  1850,  and  1858;  Con 
necticut,  1838;  Michigan,  1855;  Massachusetts,  1855. 

Use  of  jails  forbidden.  Massachusetts,  1843  and  1855;  Vermont,  1843  anc*  l8sS; 
Pennsylvania,  1847;  Rhode  Island,  1848;  Maine,  1855;  Michigan,  1855,  Ohio,  1857. 

Attorneys  emploved  to  defend  fugitives.  New  York,  1840;  Vermont,  1840,  Massachu 
setts,  1855;  Maine,  1857. 

False  testimony  punished.     Connecticut,  1838  and  1844;  Michigan,  1855. 

Admission  of  national  officers.  Connecticut,  1838  and  1844,  Vermont,  1844;  Maine, 
1855;  New  Hampshire,  1857. 


68  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Liberty  Bills.  [Ch.  v. 

State.  In  1837,  Massachusetts  passed  a  law  "  to  restore  the  trial 
by  jury,  on  questions  of  personal  freedom."  This  secured  to  the 
prisoner  a  writ  of  personal  replevin,  which  was  to  be  issued  from 
and  returnable  to  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  for  the  county  in 
which  the  plaintiff  was  confined,  and  was  to  be  issued  fourteen 
days  at  least  before  the  return  day.  If  the  prisoner  were  se 
creted,  the  court  might  send  out  a  capias  to  take  the  body  of  the 
defendant.  This  act  allowed  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Judicial 
Court. 

In  1842,  the  Latimer  case1  occurred.  This  so  aroused  public 
sentiment  that  a  great  petition,  signed  by  sixty-five  thousand  peo 
ple,  was  sent  to  the  legislature,  asking  for  a  new  personal  liberty 
law.  On  the  basis  of  the  Prigg -decision,  a  law  was  enacted  which 
forbade  State  magistrates  to  issue  certificates  or  take  cognizance 
of  the  law  of  1793,  and  withheld  the  use  of  State  jails  for  the  im 
prisonment  of  fugitives.2 

In  1851,  in  the  Shadrach  case,3  there  was  opportunity  for  testing 
the  value  of  this  law.  The  fugitive  was  not  indeed  confined  in  any 
jail,  but  there  was  little  difficulty  in  providing  a  place  of  detention, 
and  the  court-house  was  secured.  In  this  year,  acting  upon  a 
clause  in  the  Governor's  message,  which  treated  of  the  new  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Law  of  1850,  a  committee  in  the  legislature  made  a 
report,  accompanied  by  resolutions  and  a  bill  further  to  protect 
personal  liberty ;  but  no  law  was  passed,  and  there  the  matter 
rested  until  i855.4 

After  the  Sims5  and  Burns6  cases,  in  which  the  court-houses 
were  again  used  in  the  place  of  jails,  the  heat  of  public  indigna 
tion  led  to  petitions  to  the  legislature  asking  for  a  more  stringent 
personal  liberty  law.  A  joint  committee  prepared  a  bill,  which 
was  passed,  but  was  vetoed  by  Governor  Gardner,  who  had  been 
advised  by  the  Attorney  General  that  some  of  the  clauses  were 
unconstitutional.  But  so  strong  was  the  influence  in  its  favor 
that  it  was  passed  over  the  veto  by  a  two-thirds  vote.7  The 
feeling  that  it  was  probably  unconstitutional,  however,  must  have 
strengthened  in  the  next  three  years:  for  in  iS$S8  we  find  another 

1  See  ante,  §  44.  2  Laws  of  Massachusetts,  1843,  p.  33. 

3  See  ante,  §  57.  4  Parker,  Personal  Liberty  Laws,  27. 

5  See  ante,  §  54.  6  See  ante,  §  55. 

7  Parker,    Personal   Liberty  Laws,  27 ;  Laws  of  Massachusetts,  1855,  p.  924;  Ap 
pendix  D,  No.  60,  case  of  William  Johnson. 

8  Laws  of  Massachusetts,  1858,  p.  151. 


§§  8i-82.]  Review  of  the  Acts  by  States.  69 

act  which  amended  the  act  of  1855.  This  limited  some  provisions, 
and  repealed  the  following  sections :  the  tenth,  which  required  that 
any  person  who  should  give  a  certificate  that  a  person  claimed  as 
a  fugitive  was  a  slave  should  forfeit  any  State  office  he  might  hold  ; 
the  eleventh,  which  forbade  any  person  acting  as  attorney  for  a 
claimant  to  appear  as  counsel  or  attorney  in  the  State  courts;  the 
twelfth,  which  made  a  violation  of  the  preceding  section  sufficient 
ground  for  the  impeachment  of  any  officer  of  the  Commonwealth ; 
the  thirteenth,  which  forbade  any  United  States  officer  empowered 
to  give  certificate  or  issue  warrants  from  holding  a  State  office; 
and  the  fourteenth,  which  made  liable  to  removal  any  person 
holding  a  State  judicial  office  who  should  also  hold  the  office  of 
Commissioner. 

§  82.  Review  of  the  acts  by  States.  —  Of  the  other  New  England 
States,  Maine  had  no  personal  liberty  law  until  I855-1  Two  years 
after,  however,  in  i857,2  a  portion  of  an  act  declaring  free  all  slaves 
brought  by  their  masters  into  that  State  was  devoted  to  a  provision 
"  to  punish  any  attempt  to  exercise  authority  over  them." 

In  New  Hampshire,  one  of  the  laws  of  1857 3  enacted  that  every 
person  holding  any  person  as  a  slave  for  any  length  of  time,  under 
any  pretence,  should  be  deemed  guilty  of  felony;  but  provided 
that  this  should  not  apply  to  United  States  officers  executing  any 
legal  process. 

Vermont,  by  an  act  in  1840,*  extended  to  fugitives  the  right  of 
trial  by  jury,  but  after  three  years  this  was  repealed,5  only  to  be 
renewed  in  i8so.6 

Connecticut,  as  has  been  noticed,  had  no  personal  liberty  law. 
Rhode  Island  first  passed  such  an  act  in  1848^  This  forbade 
State  officers  to  take  cognizance  of  fugitive  slave  cases,  and  the 
use  of  State  jails.  Another  statute,  in  i854,8  extended  these  pro 
visions  so  as  to  apply  to  the  national  law  of  1850. 

The  act  of  1840  was  the  only  Personal  Liberty  Law  of  New 
•York.9  Pennsylvania,  some  seven  years  later,  forbade  the  use  of 
jails,  and  punished  State  officers  for  participating  in  fugitive  slave 

1  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Maine,  1855,  p.  207.  2  Ibid.,  1857,  p.  38. 

8  Acts  and  Resolves  of  New  Hampshire,  1857,  p.  1876. 
4  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Vermont,  1840,  p.  13. 

6  Laws  of  Vermont,  1843,  p.  n.  6  Ibid.,  1850,  p.  9. 

7  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Rhode  Island,  1848,  p.  12. 

8  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1854,  p.  22. 

9  Laws  of  New  York,  1840,  p.  174. 


7°  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Liberty  Bills.  [Ch.  v. 

cases.1     It  also  enacted  a  regulation  of  the  same  character  as  late 
as  1860. 

Ohio  made  but  one  provision  on  the  subject,  and  that  lasted  but 
a  year.  Her  jails  were  closed  to  suspected  slaves  in  1857,2  but  in 
1858  this  law  was  repealed.3 

Michigan  passed  such  an  act  in  i855,4  with  the  usual  clauses  on 
the  use  of  jails  and  jury  trial,  and  imposed  a  fine  on  false  testimony 
against  the  defendant. 

In  1858  Wisconsin  and  Kansas  also  passed  similar  acts.5 

§83.  Effect  of  the  personal  liberty  laws.— Since  the  avowed 
purpose  of  these  laws  was  to  obstruct  the  execution  of  one  of  the 
United  States  statutes,  national  and  State  legislation  were  thus 
brought  into  direct  conflict;  but  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  held 
constitutional  by  the  Supreme  Court,  and  any  attempt  to  prevent 
its  enforcement  by  positive  means,  liowever  righteous  from  an 
ethical  standpoint,  must  be  considered  an  infraction  of  the  Consti 
tution,  and  of  the  common  understanding  between  the  States,  on 
which  the  Union  was  founded.6  The  provisions  denying  the  use  of 
State  institutions  and  officers,  though  distinctly  unfriendly,  were 
not  unconstitutional.  Many  of  the  Abolitionists,  however,  held  the 
national  law  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  at  the  same  time  morally 
so  repugnant  that  it  ought  never  to  be  executed.7  The  State 
laws  were  brought  up  by  South  Carolina,  in  her  declaration  of 
the  causes  of  secession,  as  one  of  the  chief  grievances  against  the 
North ;  and  President  Buchanan,  in  his  Message  of  i86o,8  said  they 
were  "  the  most  palpable  violations  of  constitutional  duty  which 
had  yet  been  committed."  They  must  certainly  be  classed  in  prin 
ciple  with  the  Nullification  Ordinance  of  1832.  Indeed,  the  legis 
lature  of  Wisconsin,  after  the  Supreme  Court  had  overridden  the 
decision  of  the  State  courts  in  the  case  of  Ableman  v.  Booth  that 
the  national  law  was  contrary  to  the  national  Constitution,  passed 
some  resolutions  in  which  a  "  positive  defiance  is  urged  as  the 
'  rightful  remedy'"  against  such  legislation.9 

1  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  1847,  P-  206.  2  Laws  of  Ohio,  1857,  p.  170. 

8  Laws  of  Ohio,  1858,  p.  10.  *  Laws  of  Michigan,  1855,  p.  412. 

5  Lalor,  III.  162. 

6  Kurd,  Law  of  Freedom  and   Bondage,  II.  763;  Von  Hoist,  IV.  551  ;  Parker, 
Personal  Liberty  Laws. 

^  Phillips,  No  Slave  Hunting  in  the  Old  Bay  State  ;  Phillips,  Argument  against 
repeal  of  Personal  Liberty  Law ;  Pierce,  Personal  Liberty  Law,  4 ;  Johnson,  Speech 
on  Personal  Liberty  Law,  New  York,  1861. 

8  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  Congressional  Globe,   Appendix,  2.  »  Lalor,  III.  162. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE    END    OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE     QUESTION 

(1860-1865). 

§    85.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Law  in  the  crisis  of  1860-61. 

§    86.    Propositions  to  enforce  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 

§    87.    Propositions  to  repeal  or  amend  the  law. 
§    88.   The  question  of  slaves  of  rebels. 

§    89.    Slavery  attacked  in  Congress. 
§    90.    Confiscation  bills. 
§    91.   Confiscation  provisions  extended. 

§    92.   Effect  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  (1863). 
§    93.   Fugitives  in  loyal  slave  States. 

§    94.   Typical  cases. 

§    95-    Question  discussed  in  Congress. 

§    96.    Arrests  by  civil  officers. 
§    97.   Denial  of  the  use  of  jails  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

§    98.    Abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

§    99.    Regulations  against  kidnapping. 
§  100.    Repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Acts. 

§  101.   Early  propositions  to  repeal  the  acts. 

§  1 02.    Discussion  of  the  repeal  bill  in  the  House. 

§  103.    Repeal  bills  in  the  Senate. 

§  104.   The  repeal  act  and  the  thirteenth  amendment. 
§  105.   Educating  effect  of  the  controversy. 

§  85.   The  Fugitive  Slave  Law  in  the  crisis   of   1860-61.— If  the 

number  of  interesting  fugitive  slave  cases  falls  off  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  decade  from  1850  to   1860,  it  is  not  because  the  law  was 
better  enforced,  but  because  it  was  little  enforced.     The  continued 
interference  of  the  friends  of  the  slave  had  proved  that  a  fugitive 
could  not  safely  be  recovered  in  Massachusetts,  and  that  no  pun-  f 
ishment  could  be  secured  for  those  who  helped  him  to  his  freet/ 
clom.     The    personal   liberty  bills  added    serious   legal   obstacles. 
The   Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  even  went  so  far  as  to  declare 
the  national  act  of  1850  unconstitutional.1    In  1859  J°nn  Brown,  in 
his  Harper's  Ferry  raid,  attempted  to  establish  a  centre  to  which 

1  Ableman  v.  Booth,  3  Wis.,  I. 


72  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Question  Ended.  [Ch.  vi. 

fugitives  might  flock  ;  and  although  he  was  defeated,  he  had  the 
sympathy  of  a  large  number  of  persons  in  the  North,  including 
some  public  men. 

In  the  violent  debates  of  1 860-61,  one  of  the  frequent  charges 
brought  by  the  southern  members  against  the  North  was  its  per 
sistent  refusal  to  execute  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  or  to  permit  it  to 
be  executed.1  Even  Republican  members  disclaimed  responsi 
bility  for  their  party,  and  urged  that  the  personal  liberty  bills 
should  be  repealed.2  Other  bolder  spirits  seized  the  opportunity 
to  urge  a  repeal  of  the  act,  and  in  the  various  compromise  propo 
sitions  introduced  were  several  attempts  to  modify  the  existing 
constitutional  provision  on  the  subject. 

§  86.  Propositions  to  enforce  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  —  In  the  crisis 
of  1860  the  South  seemed  to  expect  a  general  settlement  of  the 
slavery  question  like  that  of  1850,  and  therefore  demanded  a  more 
effective  act  for  the  return  of  fugitives.  President  Buchanan,  in  his 
message  of  December  4,  1860,  recommended  "  explanatory  "  con 
stitutional  amendments  which  should  recognize  the  master's  right 
to  the  recovery  of  his  fugitive  slaves,  and  the  validity  of  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Law.  He  recommended  also  a  declaration  against  State 
laws  impairing  the  right  of  the  master,  as  being  violations  of  the 
Constitution,  and  consequently  null  and  void.3  This  recommenda 
tion  was  followed,  December  12,  1860,  by  no  less  than  eleven  resolu 
tions  upon  the  subject  in  the  House.4  Of  these  five  were  constitu 
tional  amendments.  Several  provided,  as  a  pacific  measure,  that 
the  town,  county,  or  State,  guilty  of  neglect  to  return  a  fugitive,  might 
be  sued  by  the  owner  of  the  slave  for  the  amount  thus  lost  to  him.5 
The  most  arbitrary  proposition  was  that  of  Mr.  Hindman.  It 
denied  representation  in  Congress  to  any  State  which  should  hold 
in  force  laws  hindering  the  delivery  of  fugitives.6 

Another  resolution  inquired  into  the  expediency  of  declaring  it 

1  Globe,  1860-61,  p.  356,  App.  197. 

2  Globe,  1 860-61,  (Baker)  228,  (Burnham)  970. 

3  Senate  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  p.  18.     Appendix  C,  No.  I. 

4  House  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  p.  60 ;  Congr.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  77.     Ap 
pendix  C,  Nos.  2-12.     For  a  list  of  proposed  constitutional  amendments  bearing  on 
fugitive  slaves,  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  H.  V.  Ames,  of  the  Harvard  Graduate  School, 
who  has  kindly  furnished  me  transcripts  from  his  material  for  a  forthcoming  monograph 
on  proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitution. 

5  Cong.  Globe,  3  Cong.  2  Sess.,  114.     Appendix  C,  Nos.  2-12. 

6  House  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  70 ;    Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  79.     Ap 
pendix  C,  No.  10. 


§§  85-88.]  Enforcement.     Slaves  of  Disloyal  Men.  73 

felony  to  resist  an  officer  of  the  United  States  in  the  execution  of 
the  law,  or  to  attempt  to  rescue  a  runaway.1 

§  87.  Propositions  to  repeal  or  amend  the  law.  —  On  the  other  hand, 
antislavery  members  insisted  that  the  provision  for  the  return  of 
fugitives  was  already  too  severe ;  but  only  one  of  the  resolutions 
proposed  any  amendment  in  favor  of  the  slave.  Mr.  Kilgore  pro 
posed  to  give  a  trial  by  jury  before  a  fugitive  should  be  returned.2 

As  early  as  1860  Mr.  Blake  had  introduced  into  the  House  a  bill 
to  repeal  the  law  of  1850.  It  was  read  twice,  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  from  whom  it  was  never  reported.3 
At  that  time  Congress,  in  alarm  at  the  state  of  the  country,  was 
vainly  striving  to  mend  matters  by  making  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 
even  more  effective.  March  i,  1861,  the  select  committee  of 
thirty-three  brought  in  a  bill  for  the  amendment  of  the  law  of 
1850;  it  allowed  an  appeal  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  where  jury  trial  was  to  be  given.  The  bill  passed  the 
House  the  same  day;  but  in  the  Senate  it  never  got  beyond  the 
first  reading.4 

§  88.  The  question  of  slaves  of  rebels.  —  With  the  beginning  of  the 
Civil  War  in  1861  the  last  period  in  the  study  of  fugitive  slaves 
opens,  to  close  only  with  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and 
the  abolition  of  slavery. 

New  conditions  now  surrounded  the  slaves.  Their  masters  were 
away  in  the  army ;  many  homes  were  broken  up,  and  confusion 
reigned  instead  of  law;  the  strict  discipline  and  oversight  necessary 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  slave  system  was  impossible.  Oppor 
tunities  for  escape  occurred  everywhere  and  at  all  times.  Since 
war  had  brought  the  Northern  people  down  into  their  own  land,  the 
slave  no  longer. needed  to  travel  hundreds  of  miles  to  find  friends; 
the  Northern  'camps  were  perhaps  but  a  few  miles  from  his  own 
plantation.  In  this  way  negroes  began  to  gather  around  the 
Federal  camps  in  such  numbers  that  the  question  of  disposing  of 
them  became  serious.  If  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  1850  were 
considered  as  still  binding,  their  apprehension  and  return  were 
necessary ;  but  many  of  the  masters  were  in  arms  against  the  gov 
ernment;  should  they  still  be  protected  in  their  property?  The 

1  House  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  67  ;  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  77.  Ap 
pendix  C,  No.  3. 

a  House  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess!,  70;  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  78.  Ap 
pendix  C,  No.  11. 

3  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1328.  4  Appendix  C,  No.  25. 


74  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Question  Ended.  [Ch.  vi. 

belligerent  position  of  the  South  seemed  to  preclude  any  right  on 
the  part  of  disloyal  owners  to  ask  for  the  benefit  of  the  law. 

To  meet  the  changed  conditions  no  policy  had  as  yet  been 
developed  by  the  government.  The  first  solution  of  the  problem 
was  made  at  Fortress  Monroe  by  General  Butler.  He  drew  an 
analogy  from  international  law,  which  makes  material  of  war  im 
ported  into  the  country  of  a  belligerent  lawful  prize  to  the  army 
or  navy  of  the  other  belligerent.  Regarded  as  property,  the  slaves 
of  rebels  could  be  of  great  service  to  them,  and  of  equal  help  to 
the  government  in  suppressing  rebellion.  Regarded  as  persons, 
they  had  escaped  from  communities  where  rebellion  was  in  progress, 
and  they  asked  protection  from  the  government  to  which  they  were 
still  loyal.  In  May,  1861,  General  Butler  therefore  replied  to  all 
demands  for  fugitives  that  he  should  retain  them  as  u  contraband 
of  war."  The  answer  was  widely  spread,  and  "  contraband  "  became 
the  name  by  which  such  negroes  were  known.1 

§  89.  Slavery  attacked  in  Congress.  —  A  series  of  attacks  upon 
slavery  now  began  in  Congress.  To  many  persons  the  fact  that 
the  institution  was  recognized  in  the  Constitution  seemed  sufficient 
ground  for  protecting  it.  No  doubt  was  entertained  of  the  power 
of  Congress  to  confiscate  the  ordinary  property  of  rebels  ;  but  such 
persons  deprecated  all  interference  with  slaves,  who  were  supposed 
to  possess  a  kind  of  constitutional  immunity,  wholly  unknown  to 
and  above  all  other  property.2  In  the  minds  of  antislavery  men, 
"  no  greater  fallacy  was  ever  asserted  than  this  attempt  thus  to 
link.'  the  institution  '  and  the  Constitution  indissolubly  together, 
to  engraft  the  former  upon  the  latter,  to  make  slavery  the  corner 
stone  of  the  nation,  to  be  guarded  and  protected  by  the  govern 
ment."3  Nevertheless,  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  Border  States 
which  had  remained  loyal  made  Congress  very  cautious  as  to 
general  enactments.  On  the  other  hand,  no  form  of  property  held 
by  rebels  was  so  vulnerable ;  slaves  could  not  only  be  seized  as  the 
lines  of  the  Northern  troops  extended,  they  could,  by  actual  law  or 
by  kindly  reception,  be  invited  across  the  lines.  Both  the  pas 
sions  aroused  by  civil  war  and  a  humane  pity  for  the  slave  urged 
the  government  to  deprive  the  master  engaged  in  secession  of  the 
services  of  his  slave. 

1  Liberator,  Nov.  i,  1861  ;  Edw.  L.  Pierce,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  November,  1861. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1076. 

3  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1077. 


§§8S-9i.]  Confiscation  Bills.  75 

§90.  Confiscation  bills. — July  18,  1861,  Mr.  Chandler  and  Mr. 
Trumbull  introduced  general  confiscation  bills  in  the  Senate ;  they 
were  both  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary.  In  the  dis 
cussion  Mr.  Trumbull  offered  as  an  amendment "  that  whenever  any 
person  claiming  to  be  entitled  to  the  service  or  labor  of  any  other 
person,  under  the  laws  of  any  State,  shall  employ  such  person  in 
aiding  or  promoting  any  insurrection,  or  in  resisting  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  or  shall  permit  or  suffer  him  to  be  so  employed,  he 
shall  forfeit  all  right  to  such  service  or  labor,  and  the  person  whose 
service  or  labor  is  thus  claimed  shall  be  thenceforth  discharged 
therefrom,  any  law  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding."  1 

The  proposition  aroused  considerable  opposition,  since  it  was  a 
step  far  in  advance  of  anything  which  had  yet  been  done  against 
the  interests  of  slavery,  and  any  proposition  which  advocated  "  an 
act  of  emancipation,"  however  limited  and  qualified,  was  the  signal 
for  hot  discussion.  The  opposing  party  announced  that  "  nothing 
will  come  of  it  but  more  irritation,"  2  and  in  each  crisis  statesmen 
should  "  observe  all  possible  toleration,  all  conciliation,  all  liber 
ality."  3  Mr.  Wilson  upheld  the  opposite  opinion,  and  thought 
that  the  time  had  come  when  this  government,  and  the  men 
who  are  in  arms  under  the  government,  should  cease  to  return 
their  fugitive  slaves  to  traitors. 

The  bill  passed  the  Senate  July  22,  1861.  In  the  House  it  was 
amended  so  as  to  limit  the  negroes  to  be  freed  more  strictly  to 
those  employed  in  military  service.4  The  bill  went  back  to  the 
Senate,  which  concurred  in  the  amendment,5  and  it  received  the 
signature  of  the  President,  August  6,  i86i.6 

§  91.  Confiscation  provisions  extended.  —  Propositions  more  far 
reaching  were  introduced  into  the  Senate  in  the  session  of  1861- 
62''  January  15,  1862,  Mr.  Trumbull,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary,  to  whom  the  various  propositions  had  been  referred, 
reported  an  original  bill,  and  asked  that  the  committee  be  dis 
charged  from  the  consideration  of  others.8  March  14,  1862,  Mr. 

1  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong,  i  Sess.,  218.     Appendix  C,  Nos.  30,  31. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  I  Sess.,  219. 

3  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong,  i  Sess.,  412. 

4  House  Journal,  37  Cong,  i  Sess.,  197  ;    Cong.  Globe,  409,    410.     Appendix  C, 
No.  31.  . 

5  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong,  i   Sess.,  178  ;  Cong.  Globe,  434.     Appendix  C,  No.  31. 

6  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong,  i  Sess.,  454.     Appendix  C,  No.  31. 

7  Appendix  C,  Nos.  37,  40,  44.  8  Appendix  C,  No.  52. 


76  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Question  Ended.  [Ch.  vi. 

Harris  introduced  into  the  Senate  a  bill  to  confiscate  the  property 
of  rebels  and  for  other  purposes.1  These  propositions  were  con 
sidered  at  length,  but  never  came  to  a  vote.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  enter  here  into  the  discussion  of  confiscations  and  of  the  consti 
tutional  right  of  Congress  to  free  the  slaves ;  in  most  of  the  bills 
there  was  a  provision  against  the  return  of  slaves  to  disloyal 
masters. 

The  Harris  bill  declared  that,  before  any  order  for  the  surrender 
of  fugitives  should  be  given,  the  claimant  must  establish  not  only 
his  title  to  the  slave,  as  was  then  provided  by  law,  but  also  that  he 
is  and  has  been  loyal  to  the  United  States  during  the  Rebellion. 
Mr.  Pomeroy  objected  to  this  because  it  would  make  it  "  obliga 
tory  on  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  surrender  a  person 
claimed  to  be  indebted  to  another  for  service  or  labor,  if  the  claim 
ant  proves  that  he  is  loyal  to  the  government.  Would  not  this  re- 
enact  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  iS5O?"2  An  amendment  was 
therefore  adopted  which  so  changed  the  law  that  any  reference  to 
the  act  of  1850  was  avoided.3  After  several  debates  the  proposi 
tion  was  recommitted,  May  6.4  Mr.  Clark  reported  a  bill,  May 
14,  which  retained  the  provision  in  regard  to  fugitives  as  at  first 
offered.5 

In  the  House,  resolutions  on  confiscation  and  emancipation  were 
offered  on  the  first  day  of  the  session,  but  the  final  action  was 
based  upon  one  of  several  bills  introduced  by  Mr.  Eliot,  May  14, 
i862.6  His  first  bill,  upon  the  confiscation  of  the  property  of  the 
rebels,  need  not  be  followed  out  here;  but  the  second  bill  pro 
vided  for  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  disloyal  masters,  and 
forbade  their  return  as  fugitives.  After  various  recommitments7 
a  bill  was  brought  in,  according  to  which,  in  any  suit  brought 
by  a  claimant  to  recover  the  possession  of  slaves  to  enforce  such 
service  or  labor,  it  was  to  be  a  sufficient  bar  to  allege  and  prove  that 
the  master  was  disloyal  to  the  government.8  The  bill  then  passed 
the  House  by  a  vote  of  82  to  54-8 

1  Appendix  C,  No.  59.     Referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  reported 
by  them,  April  16,  1862.     Appendix  C,  No.  67. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  944. 

3  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  946, 

4  Appendix  C,  No.  71.  &  Appendix  C,  No.  72. 

6  Appendix  C,  No.  73.     Previous  bills  introduced  by  Mr.  Eliot  had  been  unfavorably 
reported  on  by  the  Judiciary  Committee.     Appendix  C,  No.  69. 

7  Appendix  C,  No.  75.  8  Appendix  C,  No.  78. 


§§9I~93-]  The  Emancipation  Proclamation.  77 

When  it  came  up  in  the  Senate,  June  23,  1862,  Mr.  Clark  moved 
to  strike  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  to  insert  a  substitute 
which  would  again  unite  the  confiscation  and  emancipation  bills. 
This  amendment  was  rejected  by  the  House,  and  a  conference  com 
mittee  was  appointed  which  reported  July  u  and  12.  The  fugitive 
from  a  disloyal  master  was  by  this  compromise  to  be  deemed  a 
captive  of  war,  and  forever  freed  from  servitude.1  The  report  was 
adopted  by  both  houses,  and  approved  by  the  President,  July  17, 
1862. T  From  that  date  any  slave  of  a  disloyal  master  who  could 
make  his  way  into  the  territory  occupied  by  the  Northern  troops 
was  ipso  facto  free.  The  fugitive  was  to  become  a  freeman. 

§  92 .  Effect  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  (1863) .  —  The  complete 
emancipation  of  the  negroes  within  the  Confederate  lines  was  the 
next  logical  step,  and  was  demanded  as  a  war  measure.  It  de 
prived  the  Confederacy  of  the  aid  of  these  slaves,  and  at  the  same 
time  made  it  possible  to  arm  and  employ  the  former  slaves  against 
their  masters.  September  22,  1862,  President  Lincoln  issued  his 
preliminary  proclamation,  by  which  he  warned  the  South  that, 
unless  it  should  return  to  its  allegiance,  all  persons  held  as  slaves 
in  the  States  in  rebellion  on  the  1st  of  January,  1863,  should  be 
"  thenceforth  and  forever  free." 

At  the  end  of  one  hundred  days  the  final  and  absolute  Proclama 
tion  was  put  forth,  January  I,  1863.  It  declared  also  that  negroes 
might  be  received  into  the  armed  service  of  the  United  States  ;  and 
henceforth  throughout  the  war,  the  former  slaves  were  enrolled  as 
soldiers  and  did  good  service  for  the  government. 

The  effect  of  this  proclamation  was  to  end  slavery,  and  with  it 
the  return  of  fugitives,  within  the  Confederate  lines.  But  here 
the  legal  machinery  of  the  government  had  no  effect;  the  State 
laws  relating  to  slavery  might  be  considered  suspended,  but  prac 
tically  the  laws  and  practices  of  the  Confederacy  prevailed.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  yet  existed  upon  the  statute- 
book  where  the  Union  had  power;  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of 
fugitives  was  yet  legal,  and  many  desired  to  see  the  law  repealed 
as  another  step  toward  the  final  crushing  out  of  the  system. 

§  93.  Fugitives  in  loyal  slave  States.  —  From  the  beginning  of  the 
war  one  of  the  most  embarrassing  questions  which  had  come  before 
Congress  was,  How  shall  the  slaves  of  loyal  owners  be  treated  ?  The 
necessity  of  holding  the  Border  States  firm  for  the  Union  disposed 

1  Appendix  C,  No.  79. 


78  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Question  Ended.  [Ch.  vi. 

many  to  support  only  the  most  conciliatory  measures;  but  these 
States  were  a  part  of  the  theatre  of  war.  Northern  armies  now  oc 
cupied  parts  of  the  Confederacy  as  well,  and  among  the  great  num 
bers  of  blacks  who  flocked  to  the  Union  camp  it  was  impossible  to 
separate  the  slaves  of  the  loyal  from  the  disloyal.  Moreover,  it 
was  necessary  that  there  should  be  some  uniformity  of  method. 
Without  specific  law,  the  reception  given  to  fugitives  from  loyal 
masters  must  vary  with  the  views  of  each  commanding  officer  with 
whom  they  sought  refuge. 

§  94.  Typical  cases.  —  Cases  began  to  occur  very  early  in  the 
struggle.  In  1861  a  slave  called  Wisdom  ran  away  from  George 
town,  and  was  taken  in  by  some  wagoners  belonging  to  the  North 
ern  army.  He  soon  found  work,  but  his  master  succeeded  in 
tracing  him,  and  came  to  camp  to  claim  him.  He  demanded  the 
slave  of  Captain  Swan,  officer  of  the  day.  Captain  Swan  hoped  the 
man  might  be  smuggled  away,  and  so  delayed  the  search  as  long 
as  possible.  The  master  then  went  to  Colonel  Cowden,  who  im- 
•  mediately  ordered  the  slave  to  be  surrendered,  without  the  form  of 
proceedings  prescribed  by  the  act  of  1850,  and  in  disregard  of  the 
fact  that  the  master  was  not  provided  with  the  necessary  certificate. 
When  the  facts  became  known  in  Massachusetts  and  elsewhere, 
there  was  great  indignation.  The  Colonel  was  hung  in  effigy  in 
Boston,  with  the  following  inscription  :  "  Colonel  Cowden,  of  Burns 
rendition  notoriety,  is  now  practising  his  tricks  at  kidnapping  in 
Washington."  * 

Major  Sherwood  of  the  nth  West  Virginia  Regiment  had,  in 
1861,  employed  a  colored  refugee  as  his  servant.  The  owner  sent 
a  United  States  marshal  to  Brigadier  General  Boyle,  who  gave  an 
order  for  his  rendition.  Major  Sherwood  sent  a  message  that  he 
would  'give  up  his  sword,  but,  while  he  was  in  command,  no  fugi 
tive  should  be  returned.  He  was  placed  under  arrest  for  disobe 
dience,  to  await  court-martial;  but  General  Staunton  ordered 
General  Boyle's  order  revoked,  and  Major  Sherwood  was  never 
tried.  In  the  mean  time  the  boy  had  been  sent  away  concealed 
under  the  seat  of  an  ambulance,  and  reached  Canada  in  safety.2 

§  95.  Question  discussed  in  Congress.  —  As  early  in  the  war  as  1861, 
a  number  of  resolutions  were  brought  into  Congress,  designed  to 
meet  this  difficulty,3  and  Mr.  Lovejoy  introduced  a  bill  making  it  a 

1  Liberator,  July  19,  1861  ;  Appendix  D,  No.  68. 

2  Williams,  History  of  Negro  Race  in  America,  245 ;  Appendix  D,  No.  69. 

3  Appendix  C,  Nos.  36,  43,  44,  46,  47,  48. 


§§  93~95-l  Fugitives  from  Loyal  Slave  States.  79 

penal  offence  "  for  any  officer  or  private  of  the  army  or  navy  to 
capture  or  return,  or  aid  in  the  capture  or  return"  of  fugitive 
slaves.1  The  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
which  reported  adversely  upon  it,  April  16,  i862.2  December  16, 
1 86 1,  Mr.  Hale  had  offered  a  resolution,  which  was  adopted,  looking 
toward  a  uniform  method  of  dealing  with  the  slaves  of  rebels.3 
Mr.  Sumner  brought  in  another  on  December  17,  which  forbade  the 
employment  of  the  armies  in  the  surrender  of  fugitives.4  "  I  ask, 
sir,"  said  the  writer  of  a  letter  read  by  Mr.  Sumner,  "  shall  our  sons, 
who  are  offering  their  lives  for  the  preservation  of  our  institutions, 
be  degraded  to  slave  catchers  for  any  persons  loyal  or  disloyal?  If 
such  is  the  policy  of  the  government,  I  shall  urge  my  son  to  shed 
no  more  blood  for  its  preservation."  5  Another  protest  came  from 
two  German  companies  in  one  of  the  Massachusetts  regiments,  who, 
when  they  enlisted,  entered  the  service  with  the  understanding  that 
they  should  not  be  put  to  any  such  discreditable  service.  They 
complained,  and  with  them  the  German  population  generally 
throughout  the  country."  ( 

Some  proof  that  the  owner  of  the  slave  was  at  least  loyal  to  the 
government  seemed  necessary,  if  rendition  were  to  be  made  at  all  ; 
though  antislavery  men  were  determined  to  admit  no  return  of  fugi 
tives  under  any  circumstances.  December  20,  i86r,  a  resolution 
of  "Mr.  Wilson's  was  adopted,  for  an  additional  article  of  war  for 
bidding  officers  from  returning  fugitives  under  any  consideration.7 
A  bill  was  introduced,  discussed,  and  somewhat  amended,  but 
never  passed.8 

Mr.  Blair's  bill,  of  February  25,  1862,  from  the  Committee  on  Mili 
tary  Affairs  in  the  House,  was  to  the  same  purpose.9  This,  however, 
was  successfully  carried  in  both  h'ouses,  and  signed  by  the  Presi 
dent,  May  14,  1862.  In  the  discussion,  Mr.  Mallory  opposed  the 
bill,  because  it  seemed  to  him  that  it  would  prevent  the  President  of 
the  United  States  from  sending  a  military  force  into  a  State  to  aid 
the  authorities  in  enforcing  a  national  law  which  stands  upon  the 
statute-book.10  Mr.  Bingham  answered  this  objection  by  saying 
that  it  simply  determined  that  for  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  the 

i  Appendix  C,  No.  35.  '2  Appendix  C,  No.  66. 

3  Appendix  C,  No.  41. 

4  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  no;  Appendix  C,  No.  42. 

6  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  I  Sess  ,  130.  6  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  I  Sess.,  130. 

7  Appendix  C,  No.  47.  8  Appendix  C,  No.  48. 

9  Appendix  C,  No.  58.  10  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  955. 


8o  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Question  Ended.  [Ch.  vi. 

army  and  navy  should  not  exercise  functions  which  belong  solely 
to  the  civil  magistrates.1 

§  96.  Arrests  by  civil  officers.  —  The  act  of  May  14,  1862,  applied 
only  to  army  officers.  Notwithstanding  the  opportunities  then 
offered  for  escape,  wandering  negroes  were  still  liable  to  be  seized 
by  civil  authorities  and  placed  in  jail.  In  this  way  numbers  of 
negroes,  many  of  them  really  free,  were  arrested,  on  the  suppo 
sition  of  being  runaways,  and  were  imprisoned  without  trial  for  an 
indefinite  length  of  time.  An  advertisement  in  1863  shows  the 
method  then  in  use. 

"  There  was  committed  to  the  jail  of  Warren  County,  Kentucky,  as  a  run 
away  slave,  on  the  29th  September,  1862,  a  negro  man  calling  himself  Jo  Miner. 
He  says  he  is  free,  but  has  nothing  to  show  to  establish  the  fact.  He  is 
about  thirty-five  years  of  age,  very  dark  copper  color,  about  five  feet  eight 
inches  high,  and  will  weigh  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds.  The 
owner  can  come  forward,  prove  property,  and  pay  charges,  or  he  will  be  dealt 
with  as  the  law  requires. 

"  R.  J.  POTTER,  J.  W.  C. 

"March  16,  1863.     I  m."  2 

§  97.   Denial  of  the  use  of  the  jails  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  — 

Several  efforts  were  made  to  remedy  this  state  of  things,  at  least  in 
the  territory  over  which  Congress  had  exclusive  control.  December 
4,  1 86 1,  Mr.  Wilson,  who  had  been  investigating  the  condition  of  the 
District  of  Columbia  jail  in  Washington,  offered  a  joint  resolution 
for  the  release  of  all  fugitives  from  service  or  labor  therein  held.3 
It  appeared  that  some  sixty  persons  were  imprisoned  solely  because 
they  were  suspected  of  being  runaways,  and  had  been  allowed  no 
opportunity  to  prove  the  contrary.  A  free  boy  from  Pennsylvania 
came  to  Washington  with  the,  5th  Pennsylvania  Regiment.  He 
was  found  in  the  streets  and  sent  to  jail.  Another  boy,  who  was 
working  for  the  soldiers  on  the  railroad,  was  also  taken  up  and 
placed  there.4 

Mr.  Wilson  struck  at  the  root  of  the  matter  by  a  resolution,  which 
was  agreed  to,  looking  to  the  revision  of  all  the  laws  in  the  District 
of  Columbia  providing  for  the  arrest  of  persons  as  fugitives  from 
service  or  labor,  and  to  consider  the  expediency  of  abolishing 
slavery  in  the  District.5 

1  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  956. 

2  Liberator,  May  i,  1863      Extract  from  Frankfort  Commonwealth. 

3  Appendix  C,  No.  33. 

4  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  10.        6  Appendix  C,  No.  33. 


§§9S~97-]  District  of  Columbia.  8 1 

On  December  9,  1861,  Mr.  Bingham  introduced  a  resolution  for 
the  repeal  of  all  acts  in  force  in  the  District  of  Columbia  which  au 
thorized  the  commitment  of  runaways  and  suspected  runaways  to 
the  jail;  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary.1  Mr. 
Fessenden  asked  that  the  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia 
investigate  and  report  upon  the  condition  of  the  jail ;  this  was 
agreed  to.2 

A  few  weeks  later,  December  30,  1861,  Mr.  Grimes  presented  a 
bill  in  the  Senate  in  regard  to  the  administration  of  criminal  justice 
in  the  District.  This  was  read  and  referred  to  the  committee,  which 
reported  it,  January  6,  i862,3  Efforts  were  immediately  made  to 
prevent  fugitive  slaves  from  being  included  in  the  general  jail  deliv 
ery  contemplated  by  the  bill.  Mr.  Powell,  in  the  debate  upon  his 
amendment  to  that  purpose,  urged  that  so  long  as  the  institution 
of  slavery  existed  in  the  South,  no  such  measure  ought  to  prevail.4 
Mr.  Grimes  supported  his  measure  by  giving  some  examples  of 
exceedingly  unjust  cases  which  had  occurred.  "  A  young  colored 
fellow,  who  came  as  a  servant  of  an  officer  from  the  vicinity  of 
Pittsburg,  was  thrown  into  this  jail  in  August  last.  The  regiment  to 
which  he  was  attached  went  forward  toward  the  face  of  the  enemy. 
There  was  nobody  here  to  look  after  him.  There  is  no  doubt  as 
to  his  being  a  free  boy,  yet  he  was  there  on  the  first  day  of  this 
month."  To  such  cases  he  desired  to  have  the  law  apply.  "  They 
have  here  in  this  District  and  in  Maryland  what  they  call  an  appre 
hension  fee.  They  have  a  law  which  declares  that  if  any  slave 
wanders  a  certain  distance  from  the  residence  of  his  master,  he  may 
be  taken  up  as  a  fugitive.  There  are  persons  in  this  vicinity,  I  am 
credibly  informed,  who  are  lying  in  wait  all  around  your  city  and 
the  surrounding  country,  in  hope  that  they  can  find  some  poor 
colored  man  or  woman  who  is  out  picking  berries  and  visiting  a 
friend,  and  who  will  wander  a  little  further  than  the  distance  estab 
lished  by  law  from  the  residence  of  the  master."5  The  opinion 
that  such  injustice  ought  to  be  corrected  prevailed,  and  the  amend 
ment  was  rejected.  After  much  discussion  the  bill  passed  the 
Senate,  January  14,  i862,6  and  it  was  approved  by  the  President  on 
the  same  day.  Thenceforward  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  prac 
tically  a  dead  letter  at  the  seat  of  government,  since  the  necessary 

1  Appendix  C,  No.  39.  2  Appendix  C,  No.  38. 

3  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  182  ;  Appendix  C,  No  51. 

4  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  313. 

5  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  264.  6  Appendix  C,  No  51. 

6 


82  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Question  Ended.  [Ch.  vi. 

machinery  was  lacking,  and  the  spirit  of  the  administration  was 
opposed  to  it.  The  new  act  was  in  effect  a  national  personal 
liberty  bill. 

§  98.  Abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  —  The  work 
contemplated  by  all  the  propositions  was  finally  accomplished  in 
one  act.  On  December  16,  1861,  Mr.  Wilson  had  offered  a  bill 
in  the  Senate  for  the  total  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.  It  was  reported  with  amendments  a  few  weeks  after 
the  passage  of  the  act  denying  the  use  of  jails,  and  on  February 
24,  1862,  Mr.  Wilson  presented  a  supplementary  bill.1 

The  debates  upon  this  proposition  were  long  and  interesting. 
The  South  regarded  it  as  "  an  entering  wedge  of  something 
more  comprehensive  and  radical,"  '2  as  preparatory  to  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  whole  country  by  Congress.  The  antislavery 
party  rejoiced  that  at  last  an  opportunity  had  come  for  freeing 
the  national  capital  from  the  disgrace  of  slavery.  The  bill  passed 
both  houses,  and  was  approved  April  16,  i862.3  By  the  final 
section  of  the  act  the  black  code  of  Maryland  was  wiped  out, 
and  the  severe  local  provisions  against  fugitives,  which  had  not 
been  repealed  by  the  previous  act,  were  at  last  taken  away.  It 
remained  only  to  attack  the  last  stronghold  of  the  system,  —  the 
two  acts  of  1793  and  1850. 

§  99.  Regulations  against  kidnapping.  In  the  act  of  April  16, 
1862,  were  included  regulations  against  kidnapping,  —  a  practice 
made  easy  by  the  unsettled  state  of  the  country.  It  seems  to 
have  been  largely  carried  on  not  only  by  Southerners,  but  also 
by  unprincipled  soldiers  connected  with  the  Union  army.  The 
Liberator  of  March  27,  1863,  notices  such  a  case.  Some  men 
from  the  99th  Regiment  of  New  York  Volunteers  kidnapped  a 
free  colored  man  at  Norfolk,  Virginia.  They  took  his  horse,  cart, 
and  the  provisions  which  he  had  just  bought,  and  offered  him 
for  sale  to  be  sent  South.  During  the  absence  of  his  captors  for 
a  fe*w  moments,  the  man  was  able  to  work  off  his  bonds  and  to 
escape  in  the  darkness.  He  immediately  went  before  a  provost 
marshal,  told  his  story,  and  recognized  one  of  his  captors  who 
was  just  entering  the  door.  What  the  consequences  of  this  meet 
ing  were  the  "  Liberator  "  does  not  tell  us  ;  but  the  impression  is 
given  that  the  negro  was  saved  from  his  pursuers.4 

1  Appendix  C,  Nos.  42,  54,  56. 

-  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America,  iii.  273. 

3  Appendix  C,  Nos.  62,  65.  4  Appendix  D,  No.  68. 


§§97-ioi.]  Repeal  of  the  Acts  proposed.  83 

§  100.  Repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Acts.— By  the  successive  acts  of 
Congress  and  the  President,  the  legal  effect  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Laws  was  now  confined  practically  to  the  limited  area  of  the  Border 
States.  No  officer,  civil  or  military,  could  return  a  fugitive  into 
the  Confederate  lines.  Slavery  was  forbidden  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  and  there  could  be  no  escapes  thence ;  and  Congress 
forbade  the  use  of  the  jails  of  the  District  for  the  confinement 
of  fugitives  from  slaveholding  regions.  In  the  free  States  the 
rendition  of  slaves,  though  still  legally  required,  had  long  since 
ceased.  The  final  step  was  delayed  till  1864. 

§  10 1.  Early  propositions  to  repeal  the  acts.  —  Repeal,  however, 
was  preceded  by  many  earlier  propositions.  The  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary,  to  which  was  referred  Mr.  Howe's  bill,  presented 
December  26,  I86I,1  did  not  report  until  1863,  and  then  with  the 
opinion  that  it  ought  not  to  pass.  In  introducing  his  repeal 
measure,  Mr.  Howe  spoke  of  the  bill  of  1850  as  one  "which  has 
probably  done  as  much  mischief  as  any  other  one  act  that  was 
ever  passed  by  the  national  legislature.  It  has  embittered  against 
each  other  two  great  sections  of  the  country."  2  To  take  away 
the  law  of  1850  would  leave  in  force  the  act  of  1793,  which 
was  "  good  enough." 

June  9,  1862,  soon  after  the  passage  of  the  acts  on  the  District 
of  Columbia,  Mr.  Julian  presented  in  the  House  another  repeal 
bill,  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary.3  As 
the  war  progressed,  and  the  antislavery  sentiment  began  to  out 
weigh  all  others,  it  became  evident  that  the  old  law  could  not 
much  longer  obtain.  Nevertheless  the  question  was  set  aside 
during  the  session  of  1862—63,  but  in  1863-64  five  bills  were 
introduced  looking  to  the  repeal  of  the  acts.4 

Mr.  Morris,  from  the  committee  to  whom  all  bills  for  repeal 
had  been  referred,  reported  a  substitute  for  them,  June  6,  1864, 
and  this  was  the  basis  of  the  final  action  of  Congress.5 

1  Appendix  C,  No.  49.  2  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  I  Sess.,  1356. 

3  Appendix  C,  No.  76. 

4  Three  bills  were  introduced  in  the  House  on  the  same  day,  December  14,  1863,  by 
Messrs.  Stevens,  Julian,  and  Ashley.     They  were  read  twice  and  referred.     Appendix 
C,  Nos.  104,  1 06.     Before  the  final  consideration  of  the  subject,  on  February  8,  1864, 
two  more  bills  were  introduced  in  Congress,  Mr.  Sumner's  in  the  Senate,  and  Mr. 
Spalding's  in  the  House.     The  former  went  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  the 
latter  to  the  Select  Committee  on  Slavery  and  Freedom.     Appendix  C,  No.  So. 

5  Appendix  C,  No.  So. 


84  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Question  Ended.  [Ch.  vi. 

§  1 02.  Discussion  of  the  repeal  bill  in  the  House.  —  Had  the  country 
been  divided  simply  into  two  parts,  the  slaveholding  Southern  Con 
federacy  and  the  free  loyal  North,  little  discussion  could  have  arisen. 
The  third  element,  the  slaveholding  States  which  remained  firm 
for  the  Union,  rendered  the  question  far  more  complex.  The 
bill  therefore  aroused  much  indignation.  Mr.  Mallory  demanded, 
as  an  act  of  justice  to  his  State,  that  "  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  be 
permitted  to  remain  on  the  statute-book.  If  you  say  it  will  be  a 
dead  letter,  so  much  less  excuse  have  you  for  repealing  it,  and  so 
much  more  certainly  is  the  insult  and  wrong  to  Kentucky  gra 
tuitous.  This  act,  by  which  you  declare  your  intention  not  to 
obey  the  injunction  of  the  Constitution  is  wanton  and  useless, 
except  for  the  purpose  of  bravely  exhibiting  your  contempt  for 
that  instrument."  "The  framers  of  the  Constitution  gave  us  the 
right  to  reclaim  fugitive  slaves-.  It  was  conceded  not  as  a  favor, 
but  as  a  right."  "  Kentucky  has  remained  true  to  her  faith 
pledged  to  the  government,  and  I  warn  you  not  to  persevere  in 
inflicting  on  her  insult  and  outrage."1 

Again,  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  departure  of  the  Southern  States, 
was  the  "  bad  faith  of  the  Northern  States,  —  the  fatal  infringe 
ment  of  this  part  of  the  Constitution.  It  was  because  of  Personal 
Liberty  bills,  John  Brown  raids,  and  general  denunciation  and  in 
termeddling  with  slavery."  2  Many  members  urged  that  there  could 
be  no  more  reckless  action  than  to  show  to  the  Border  States  an 
apparent  disregard  of  the  Constitution.  Mr.  Cox  considered  the 
law  the  only  refuge  left  to  a  certain  class  of  citizens  to  protect 
their  "  rights."  It  would  be  like  saying  to  them,  We  place  the 
penalty  of  the  treason  of  the  revolted  slaveholders  on  your 
innocent  heads.  "  We  add  to  your  calamities  the  ingratitude  and 
treachery  of  the  government  to  which  you  have  adhered."  3 

The  final  discussion,  June  13,  opened  with  a  long  speech  by 
Mr.  King.  The  old  arguments  from  the  Constitution,  the  far- 
seeing  wisdom  of  the  fathers,  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  Prigg  case,  and  the  harm  done  the  Border  States,  were 
again  rehearsed.4 

In  answer  to  Mr.  King,  Mr.  Hubbard  denied  that  the  Constitu 
tion  provided  for  the  enactment  of  a  law  by  Congress,  and  in  any 

1  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  2774,  2775. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  2914. 

3  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  2914. 

4  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  2911. 


§§  1 02- 1 03-1  Discussion  of  Repeal  Bills.  85 

case,  the  treason  of  slavery  had  already  absolved  the  people  from 
any  such  obligation.  It  surely  must  be  competent  for  this  Congress 
to  repeal  any  act  which  a  previous  Congress  had  enacted.  For 
yet  another  reason  the  law  should  be  repealed.  Negro  soldiers 
must  be  enlisted :  "  You  cannot  draft  black  men  into  the  field, 
while  your  marshals  are  chasing  women  and  children  in  the  woods 
of  Ohio  with  a  view  to  render  them  back  into  bondage.  The 

o 

moral  sense  of  the  nation,  ay,  of  the  world,  would  revolt  at  it."  1 
Again,  this  would  make  a  conflict  in  our  laws,  said  Mr.  Morris. 
A  colored  man  might  enlist  in  our  army,  then,  under  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  "he  might  be  seized  and  remanded  to  slavery;  and  as 
a  further  consequence,  dealt  with  as  a  deserter  from  his  post  of 
duty."2  It  was  also  urged  that  unless  slavery  was  to  survive  the 
war,  the  two  acts  were  useless  and  obsolete  statutes,  which  ought  to 
be  wiped  out  of  existence.  No  one  who  believes  that  slavery  is 
dead  would  desire  to  keep  such  a  guaranty  of  the  institution3 
Mr.  Hubbard  then  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  passage 
of  the  bill.  It  was  declared  in  the  affirmative,  yeas  82,  nays  57, 
and  thus  the  repeal  was  successfully  carried  in  the  House.4 

§  103.  Repeal  bills  in  the  Senate.  —  Mr.  Sumne'r  had  already  re 
ported  a  repeal  bill  from  the  Committee  on  Slavery  and  Freedom 
in  the  Senate,  February  29,  i864.5  The  progress  of  the  bill  was  so 
delayed  by  the  opposition,  that  Mr.  Sumner  at  last  gave  notice  that 
he  should  take  every  proper  occasion  to  call  up  the  bill,  and  press 
its  consideration.6 

In  the  debate  several  speeches  were  made  against  the  measure, 
while  Mr.  Sumner  defended  it.  To  the  antislavery  party  the  act 
was  constitutionally  7  and  morally  wrong,  so  against  public  senti 
ment  that  it  could  seldom  be  enforced,  and  the  question  of  its  repeal 
was  as  plain  as  a  "  diagram,"  "the  multiplication  table,"  or  "the 
ten  commandments."8  They  desired  to  strike  slavery  wherever 
they  could  hit  it,  and  to  "  purify  the  statute-book,  so  that  there 
should  be  nothing  in  it  out  of  which  this  wrong  can  derive  any 
support."  It  should  be  repealed  for  the  sake  of  our  cause  in  foreign 
lands.9  "  Since  the  outbreak  of  the  Rebellion  this  statute  has  been 

1  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  2913.    2  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  2919. 
3  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  2917.    4  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  2920. 

5  Senate  Journal,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  196;  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  869;  Ap 
pendix  C,  No.  80. 

6  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  1175.    7  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess  ,  1710. 
8  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  1709.    9  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  1713. 


86  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Question  Ended.  [Ch.  vi. 

constantly  adduced  by  our  enemies  abroad  as  showing  that  we  are 
little  better  than  Jefferson  Davis  and  his  slave-monger  crew;  for 
slavery  never  shows  itself  worse  than  in  the  slave-hunter.  It  is  a 
burden  for  our  cause  which  it  ought  not  to  be  obliged  to  bear." 

To  retain  the  law  of  1793,  framed  by  the  founders  of  the  Re 
public,  and  repeal  the  act  of  1850  with  its  manifest  injustice,  was 
suggested  as  a  desirable  compromise.  Mr.  Sherman,  therefore, 
offered  an  amendment  to  this  effect,  and  it  was  accepted.1  The 
friends  of  the  measure  then  felt  that  the  bill  as  it  stood  was  of 
little  value  to  the  antislavery  cause.  Mr.  Brown  maintained  that  it 
was  really  a  proposition  to  reinstate  slavery  in  its  fastness  in  the 
Constitution.  "  The  civilized  world,  when  it  beholds  the  spectacle 
of  the  American  Senate  going  back  for  three  quarters  of  a  cen 
tury  to  resurrect  a  statute  of  slave-catching,  and  pass  it  anew  with 
their  indorsement,  will  credit  very  little  all  your  talk  about  free 
dom.  The  act  will  give  the  lie  to  all  argument."  2 

Before  further  action  was  taken  on  Mr.  Sherman's  bill,  the  repeal 
bill  from  the  House  came  before  the  Senate,  and  was  reported  from 
the  committee,  June  15,  1864.  It  was  discussed  for  several  days, 
but  no  new  arguments  were  offered,  and,  June  23,  1864,  the  bill 
passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  27  to  I2.3  On  the  25th  of  June  it 
received  President  Lincoln's  signature,  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Laws 
were  swept  from  the  statute-book  of  the  United  States.4 

§  104.  The  repeal  act  and  the  thirteenth  amendment.  —  The  act  was 
a  simple  one;  it  runs  as  follows:  — 

"  Chap.  CLXVI.  An  Act  to  repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty,  and  all  Acts  and  parts  of  Acts  for  the 
rendition  of  Fugitive  Slaves. 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  sections  three 
and  four  of  an  act  entitled  '  An  act  respecting  fugitives  from  justice, 
and  persons  escaping  from  the  service  of  their  masters,'  passed 
February  twelve,  seventeen  hundred  and  ninety-three,  and  an  act 
entitled  '  An  act  to  amend,  and  supplementary  to,  the  act  entitled 
An  act  respecting  fugitives  from  justice,  and  persons  escaping 
from  the  service  of  their  masters,  passed  February  twelve,  seven. 

1  Senate  Journal,  38  Cong.  I  Sess.,  348  ;  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  1710,  1714. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  1752. 

3  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong,  i  Sess.,  3191  ;  Appendix  C,  No.  83. 

4  Appendix  C,  No.  116. 


§§  103-105.]  Repeal  of  the  Acts.  87 

teen  hundred  and  ninety-three,'  passed  September,  eighteen  hun 
dred  and  fifty,  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  repealed. 

"  Approved,  June  28,  1864." 

The  whole  structure  of  statutes,  decisions,  and  judicial  machinery 
which  had  been  erected  to  compel  by  national  authority  the  people 
of  free  States  to  share  in  the  responsibility  for  slavery,  was  at  last 
overthrown.  But  the  constitutional  obligation  remained ;  so  long 
as  a  slave  anywhere  existed,  the  neighboring  States  were  bound  to 
pursue  him,  if  he  ran  away,  and  might  by  statute  provide  for  his 
return.  The  final  step  was  therefore  to  complete  the  work  of  legal 
emancipation  by  the  thirteenth  amendment  to  the  Constitution.  On 
January  31,  1865,  Congress  voted  to  submit  the  following  article  to 
the  States  for  their  approval  and  ratification :  "  Art.  XIII.  Neither 
slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime, 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  exist  within 
the  United  States  or  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction."  On 
December  18,  1865,  the  Secretary  of  State  proclaimed  that  the 
amendment  had  been  approved  by  twenty-seven  of  the  thirty-six 
States,  and  was  consequently  adopted. 

§  105.  Educating  effect  of  the  controversy.  —  The  first  act  of  1793 
was  imperfect.  It  did  not  provide  a  national  machinery  whereby 
its  provisions  could  be  executed,  and  many  of  the  States  by  means 
of  the  personal  liberty  laws  refused  to  lend  their  officers  and  jails 
for  the  work.  All  efforts  to  amend  the  law  were  unsuccessful  until 
the  great  compromise  of  1850  gave  opportunity  to  pass  a  second 
act. 

This  new  measure  remedied  certain  defects  in  the  first  statute, 
and  was  therefore  more  satisfactory  to  the  slave-owners.  As  soon 
as  it  began  to  be  executed,  however,  its  provisions  were  found  to  be 
so  severe  that  the  trials  and  rescues  it  occasioned  served  only  to 
educate  the  people  to  the  evils  of  slavery  by  bringing  its  effects 
close  to  them.  Thus,  far  from  compelling  the  North  to  acquiesce 
in  the  system,  it  greatly  increased  the  number  of  Abolitionists 
The  arraying  of  the  North  and  South  against  each  other  in  the 
Civil  War  intensified  public  sentiment  upon  the  question,  and  led 
more  and  more  to  a  loose  execution  of  the  law.  It  was  found  im 
practicable  to  return  slaves  to  disloyal  masters,  and  a  law  to  prevent 
any  such  return  was  the  next  step  toward  the  doing  away  of  the 
whole  system.  Next  came  the  question  of  the  duty  and  power  of 
the  general  government,  within  its  exclusive  jurisdiction:  in  1862 


88  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Question  Ended.  [Ch.  vi. 

all  responsibility  was  disavowed.  By  this  time  the  force  of  the  law 
extended  only  to  the  loyal  slave  States,  and  the  force  of  public 
opinion  in  1864  withdrew  the  last  statutory  safeguard  of  slavery 
under  the  Constitution.  .A  change  in  the  text  of  the  Constitution 
finally  took  away  the  force  of  the  clause  on  which  the  return  of 
fugitives  was  based. 

We  can  see,  at  this  distance,  how  clearly  slavery  was  doomed  to 
destruction,  from  the  time  the  two  sections  first  made  it  an  issue  in 
1820;  but  there  was  no  relation  arising  out  of  slavery  except  the 
territorial  question  which  did  so  much  as  the  fugitive  slave  contro 
versy  to  hasten  the  downfall  of  the  system.  The  contrast  between 
the  free  principles  of  democratic  government  and  human  bondage 
was  forced  upon  the  attention  of  the  North  by  the  pursuit  of  fugi 
tives  in  their  midst.  Yet  without  national  machinery  for  the  re 
capture  of  runaways  the  institution  could  not  have  long  been 
maintained.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  North  was  profoundly 
stirred  by  the  horrors  of  slavery  before  1850;  it  was  only  when  the 
North  was  called  upon,  in  the  Territories,  and  through  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Law,  to  give  positive  aid  to  the  system  that  the  anti- 
slavery  movement  grew  strong.  Fugitive  slaves  and  fugitive  slave 
laws  helped  to  destroy  slavery. 


COLONIAL  LAWS  RELATIVE   TO  FUGITIVES. 


THE  precise  text  is  quoted  in  each  case.  The  figures  in  brackets  [  ]  refer  to  para 
graphs  in  the  text.  The  sign  O  indicates  that  the  full  text  is  to  be  found  in  the 
reference  cited. 

1.  New  Netherlands:  —  Running  away  from  Patroons.     [§  2]. 

1629,  June  7.  Freedoms  and  exemptions.  Granted  by  the  West  India  Company  to 
all  Patroons,  Masters  or  Private  Persons  who  will  plant  Colonies  in  New  Netherlands. — 
"  XVIII.  The  Company  promise  the  colonists  of  the  Patroons.  .  .  .  XIX.  —  And  any 
Colonist  who  shall  leave  the  service  of  his  Patroon  and  enter  into  the  service  of  another, 
or  shall,  contrary  to  his  contract,  leave  his  service,  we  promise  to  do  everything  in  our 
power  to  apprehend  and  deliver  the  same  into  the  hands  of  his  Patroon  or  attorney, 
that  he  may  be  proceeded  against  according  to  the  customs  of  this  country,  as  occasion 
may  require."  —  O  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New  Netherlands,  7. 

2.  Massachusetts :  —  Capture  and  protection  of  servants.     [§  4.] 
1630-1641.     "  Acts  respecting  Masters,  Servants,  and  Labourers."  —  "  Sec.  3.    It  is 

also  ordered,  that  when  any  servants  shall  run  from  their  masters,  or  any  other  inhab 
itants  shall  privily  go  away  with  suspicion  of  evil  intentions,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the 
next  magistrate,  or  the  constable  and  two  of  the  chief  inhabitants  where  no  magistrate 
is,  to  press  men  and  boats  or  pinnaces  at  the  publick  charge,  to  pursue  such  persons  by 
sea  and  land,  and  bring  them  back  by  force  of  arms.  .  .  .  Sec.  6.  It  is  ordered,  and  by 
this  court  declared;  that  if  any  servant  shall  flee  from  the  tyranny  and  cruelty  of  his  or 
her  master  to  the  house  of  any  freeman  of  the  same  town,  they  shall  be  there  protected 
and  sustained  till  due  order  be  taken  for  their  relief ;  provided  due  notice  thereof  be 
speedily  given  to  their  master  from  whom  they  fled,  and  to  the  next  magistrate  or  con 
stable  where  the  party  so  fled  is  harboured."  —  O  Charters  and  General  Laws  of  the 
Colony  and  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  155. 

3.  New  Netherlands  :  — Runaway  servants.     [§  6."| 

1640,  Aug.  7.  "  Ordinance  of  the  Director  and  Council  of  New  Netherland,  against 
Fugitives  from  Service,  and  providing  for  the  proper  drawing  up  of  Legal  Instruments." 
Passed  9  August,  1640.  "Whereas  many  Servants  daily  run  away  from  their  masters, 
whereby  the  latter  are  put  to  great  inconvenience  and  expense ;  the  Corn  and  Tobacco 
rot  in  the  field  and  the  whole  Harvest  is  at  a  stand  still,  which  tends  to  the  serious  in 
jury  of  this  country,  to  their  Masters'  ruin,  and  to  bring  the  magistracy  into  contempt. 
We,  therefore,  command  all  farm  and  house  Servants  faithfully  to  serve  out  the4r 
time  with  their  Masters  according  to  their  contracts  and  in  no  manner  to  run  away, 
and  if  they  have  any  thing  against  their  masters,  to  come  to  Us  and  make  application 
to  be  heard  in  due  form  of  Law,  on  pain  of  being  punished  and  of  making  good  all 
losses  and  damages  of  their  Masters  and  serving  double  the  time  they  may  lose.  .  .  . 

[89] 


9°  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Colonial  Laws.  [APP.  A. 

We  do,  also,  forbid  all  inhabitants  of  New  Netherland  to  harbor  or  feed  any  of  these 
Fugitive  Servants  under  the  penalty  of  Fifty  guilders,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Informer ;  ^ 
for  the  new  Church  and  ^  for  the  Fiscal."  Dated  as  above.  —  O  Laws  and  Ordinances 
oj  Alza  Netherlands,  32. 

4.  Maryland  :  —Runaway  apprentices  felons. 

1642,  March  26.  Act  against  Fugitives.  —  '<  It  shall  be  felony  in  any  apprentice  Ser 
vant  to  depart  away  secretly  from  his  or  her  Master  or  dame  then  being  with  intent  to 
convey  him  or  her  Selfe  away  out  of  the  Province.  And  on  any  other  person  that  shall 
wittingly  accompany  such  Servant  in  such  unlawful!  departure  as  aforesaid.  And  the 
offenders  therein  shall  suffer  paines  of  death,  and  after  his  due  debts  paid  shall  forfeit 
all  his  Lands,  goods,  &  Chattels  within  the  Province.  Provided,  that  in  Case  his  Lord 
ship  or  his  Leivt't-Generall  shall  at  the  request  of  the  partie  so  condemned  exchange 
such  pains  of  death  into  Servitude,  that  then  such  exchange  shall  not  exceed  the  term 
Seaven  years,  and  that  the  Master  or  dame  of  the  parties  so  pardoned  of  death  shall 
first  be  satisfied  for  the  terme  of  such  parties  Service  unexpired  from  the  day  of  such 
unlawful!  departure,  and  for  double  the  time  of  his  absence  durcing  his  said  departure." 
-O  Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly  Proceedings,  124. 

5.  New  Netherlands  :-  Against  harboring  fugitive  servants.     (§6). 

1642,  April  13.  "  We  have  interdicted  and  forbidden,  as  we  do  hereby  most,  ex 
pressly  interdict  and  forbid,  all  our  good  inhabitants  here,  from  this  time  henceforward, 
lodging  any  strangers  in  their  houses,  or  furnishing  them  more  than  one  meal  and  har 
boring  them  more  than  one  night  without  first  notifying  the  Director,"  etc.  — O  Laws 
and  Ordinances  of  New  A^etherlands,  32. 

6.  Virginia  :  —  Entertainment  of  fugitives.     [§  3  ] 

1642-3.  March.  Act  XXI.  "  Whereas  complaints  are  at  every  quarter  court  exhibited 
against  divers  persons  who  entertain  and  enter  into  covenants  with  runaway  servants 
and  freemen  who  have  formerly  hired  themselves  to  others,  to  the  great  prejudice  if  not 
the  utter  undoeing  of  divers  poor  men,  thereby  also  encouraging  servants  to  runn  from 
their  masters  and  obscure  themselves  in  some  remote  plantation.  Upon  consideration 
had  for  the  future  preventing  of  the  like  injurious  and  unjust  dealings,  Be  it  enacted  and 
confirmed  that  what  person  or  persons  soever  shall  entertain  any  person  as  hireling,  or 
sharer,  or  upon  any  other  conditions  for  one  whole  yeare,  without  certificate  from  the 
commander  or  any  one  commissioner  of  the  place,  that  he  or  she  is  free  from  any  ingage- 
ment  of  service.  The  person  so  hireing  without  such  certificate  as  aforesaid,  shall  for 
every  night  that  he  or  she  entertaineth  any  servant,  either  as  hireling  or  otherwise,  ffor- 
feit  to  the  master  or  mistris  of  the  said  servant  twenty  pounds  of  tobacco.  And  for 
evrie  freeman  which  he  or  she  entertaineth  (formerly  hired  by  another)  for  a  year  as 
aforesaid,  he  or  she  shall  forfeit  to  the  party  who  had  first  hired  him  twenty  pound  of 
tobacco  for  every  night  deteyned.  And  for  every  freeman  which  he  or  she  entertaineth 
(though  he  hath  not  formerly  hired  himselfe  to  another),  without  certificate  as  aforesaid, 
And  in  all  these  cases  the  party  hired  shall  receive  such  censure  and  punishment  as 
shall  be  thought  fitt  by  the  Governor  and  Counsel! :  Allways  provided  that  if  any  such 
runnaway  servrmts  or  hired  freemen  shall  produce  such  a  certificate,  wherein  it  appears 
that  they  are  freed  from  their  former  masters  service,  or  from  any  such  ingagement 
respectively,  if  afterwards  it  shall  be  proved  that  the  said  certificates  are  counterfeit 
then  the  retayner  not  to  suffer  according  to  the  penalty  of  this  act,  But  such  punish 
ment  shall  be  inflicted  upon  the  forger  and  procurer  thereof  as  the  Governor  and 
Council  shall  think  fitt."  —  O  Statutes  at  Large.  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  I.  253. 

7.    Virginia  :  — Runaway  servants.     [§  3.] 

1642-3,  March.     Act  XXII.     "Be  it  therefore  enacted  and  confirmed  that  all  runa 
ways  that  shall  absent  themselves  from  their  said  master's  service  shall  be  lyable  to 


1642-1656.]  Colonial  Laivs  relative  to  Fugitives.  91 

make  satisfaction  by  service  at  the  end  of  their  tymes  by  indenture  (vizt.)  double  the 
tyme  of  service  soe  neglected,  and  in  some  cases  more  if  the  commissioners  for  the 
place  appointed  shall  find  it  requisite  and  convenient.  And  if  such  runaways  shall  be 
found  to  transgresse  the  second  time  or  oftener  (if  it  shall  be  duely  proved  against  them), 
that  then  they  shall  be  branded  in  the  cheek  with  the  letter  R.  and  passe  under  the 
statute  of  incorrigible  rogues."  —  O  Statutes  at  Large.  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  I.  254. 

8.  New  England  Confederation  :  —  Articles  of  Confederation.     [§  8.] 

1643,  Aug.  29.     VIII.    "  It  is  also  agreed  that  if  any  servant  runn  away  from  his 
master  into  any  other  of  these  confederated  Jurisdiccons,  That  in  such  Case,  vpon  the 
Certyficate  of  one  Magistrate  in  the  Jurisdiccon  out  of  which  the  said  servant  fled, 
or  upon  other  due  proofe,  the  said  servant  shalbe  deliuered  either  to  his  Master  or 
any  other  that  pursues  and  brings  such  Certificate  or  proufe." — O  Plymouth  Colony 
Records,  IX.  5. 

9.  Connecticut :  —  Servants  and  apprentices. 

1644,  June  3.    "  Whereas  many  stubborn,  refrectary  and  discontented  searuants  and 
apprntices  wth  drawe  themselves  fr5  their  masters  searuices,  to  improue  their  tyme  to 
their  owne  aduantage  ;    for  the  preuenting   whereof,  It  is  Ordered,  that   whatsoeuer 
searuant  or  apprentice  shall  heareafter  offend  in  that  kynd,  before  their  couenants  or 
terme  of  searuice  are  expiered,  shall  searue  their  said  Masters,  as  they  shall  be  appre 
hended  or  retayned  the  treble  terme,  or  threefold  tyme  of  their  absense  in  such  kynd." 
—  O  Connecticut  Records,  I.  105. 

10.  New  Netherlands  :  —  Entertainment  of  runaways. 

1648,  Oct.  6.    Ordinance  of  the  Director  and  Council  of  New  Netherland  against 
Fugitives  from  Service.    Passed  6  October,  1648.  —  "  The  Director  General  and  Council 
hereby  notify  and  warn  all  persons  against  harboring  or  entertaining  any  one  bound 
to  service  either  to  the  Company  or  to  any  private  individual  here  or  elsewhere,  and 
against  lodging  or  boarding  them  at  most  longer  than  twenty-four  hours,  and  if  any 
one  shall  be  found  to  have  acted  contrary  hereto,  he  shall  forfeit  a  fine  of  fl.  150,  to  be 
paid  to  whomsoever  will  make  the  complaint  and  it  may  appertain."  —  O  Laws  and 
Ordinances  of  New  Netherlands,  104. 

11.  Maryland  :  —  Against  fugitives. 

1649.  Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly  Proceedings,  249. 

12.  Maryland  :  —  Against  fugitives. 

1654,  Oct.    Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly  Proceedings,  348. 

13.  Virginia  :  —  Penalty  for  second  offence. 

1655-6,  March.  "Act  XL  Be  it  enacted  by  this  Grand  Assembly  that  if  any  runn- 
away  servant  offend  the  second  time  against  the  act  in  March,  1642,  concerning  runn- 
away  servants,  that  he  shall  not  onely  be  branded  with  the  letter  R.,  and  passe  under 
the  statute  for  an  incorrigible  rogue,  but  also  double  his  time  of  service  so  neglected, 
and  soe  likewise  double  the  time  that  any  time  afterward  he  shall  neglect,  and  in  some 
cases  more  if  the  Commissioners  think  fitt :  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority 
aforesaid,  that  he  or  she  that  shall  lodge  or  harbour  any  such  runnaway  shall  not  only 
pay  20  Ib.  of  tobacco  per  night,  but  also  40  Ib.  of  tobacco  per  day  so  long  as  they  shallbe 
proved  to  entertaine  them,  contrary  to  an  act  of  assembly  in  March,  1642."  —  O  Statutes 
at  Large,  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  I.  401. 

14.  New  Netherlands  :  — Treaty  with  United  Colonies.     [§ii.] 

1656.  Resolution  of  the  States  General  ratifying  the  treaty  of  Hartford,  passed  Febru 
ary  22,  1656.  —  "  Respecting  Fugitives.  It  is  agreed  that  the  same  method  shall  be  ob 
served  between  the  United  English  Colonies  and  the  Dutch  nation  in  this  country  of 
New  Netherland,  agreeably  to  the  eighth  Article  of  the  confederation  between  the 
United  English  Colonies  in  that  case  provided."— O  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New 
Netherlands,  216. 


92  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Colonial  Laws.  [APP.  A. 

15.  City  of  Amsterdam:  —  Runaway  colonists  banished. 

1656,  December.  Articles  and  Ordinances  revised  and  enacted  by  the  Right  Honor 
able  the  Lords  Burgomasters  of  the  City  of  Amsterdam,  according  to  which  shall  be 
engaged  and  sworn  all  those  who  shall  hereafter  enter  the  service  of  the  Lord's  Burgo 
masters  of  the  City  of  Amsterdam,  for  the  purpose  of  going  with  their  own,  or  chartered 
ships  to  New  Netherlands  and  the  limits  of  the  West  India  Company's  Grant,  etc. 
Passed  December,  1856.  — "  Whoever  runs  off  to  the  French,  English,  or  any  other 
Christian  or  Indian  neighbors  by  whatsoever  name  they  may  be  called,  shall,  in  addition 
to  the  forfeiture  of  all  his  monthly  pay  to  the  City,  be  banished  forever  from  New  Nether- 
land  as  a  perjured  villain,  and  if  he  afterward  come  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  City,  he 
shall,  without  any  consideration,  be  punished  by  death  or  otherwise,  according  to  the 
exigency  of  the  case." — O  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New  Netherlands,  273. 

16.  Virginia :  —  Entertainment  of  runaways. 

1657-8,  March.  Act  XV.  Concerning  Hireing  Servants.  Thirty  pounds  of  to 
bacco  shall  be  paid  for  every  night  a  servant  or  person  without  a  certificate  is  enter 
tained.  —  Statutes  at  Large.  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  I.  439. 

17.  Virginia :  —  Punishment  of  runaways. 

1657-8,  March.  Act  XVI.  Against  Runnaway  Servants.  Runnaways  shall  double 
the  time  of  service  absent  at  the  end  of  their  time  of  indenture.  For  the  second  offence 
they  shall  be  branded  with  the  letter  R.  and  double  the  time  lost.  —  Hening,  Laws  of 
Virginia,  I.  440. 

18.  Virginia :  —  Huie  and  crie  after  runaways. 

1657-8,  March.  "ActCXIII.  Concerning  Huie  and  cries.  Whereas  huy  and  cries 
after  runnaway  servants  hath  been  much  neglected  to  fhe  greate  damage  and  loss  of  the 
inhabitants  of  this  colloney,  Bee  it  therefore  enacted  and  confirmed  by  the  authorite  of 
this  present  Grand  Assembly,  that  all  such  huy  and  cries  shall  be  signed  either  by  the 
Governor  or  some  of  the  Councill,  or  under  the  hand  of  some  com'r,  nameing  the 
county  where  the  said  com'r  lives,  and  the  same  shall  be  conveyed  from  house  to 
house  with  all  convenient  speed  according  as  the  direction  thereof  expresseth :  And 
every  com'r  of  each  county  unto  whose  house  by  this  meanes  the  said  huy  and  crie 
shall  come  shall  then  date  and  subscribe  the  same,  And  the  master  of  every  house  that 
shall  make  default  in  the  speedy  conveyance  of  any  such  huies  and  cries  shall  for  every 
such  default  forfeit  and  pay  unto  the  owners  of  any  such  runnawaie  as  the  said  hues  and 
cries  shall  mention,  one  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco,  and  where  the  said  runnawaie  ser 
vant  is  found  he  shall  be  apprehended  and  sent  from  constable  to  constable  untill  such 
runnawaie  or  runnawayes  shall  be  delivered  to  his  or  theire  master  or  mistresse,  and  if 
any  neglect  can  be  proved  against  the  constable  hee  to  be  fined  three  hundred  and 
fiftie  pounds  of  tobacco."  —  O  Statutes  at  Large.  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  I.  483. 

19.  New  Netherlands  :  —  Runaway  servants. 

1658,  April  9.  Ordinance  of  the  Director  General  and  Council  of  New  Netherland 
renewing sundery  Ordinances  therein  mentioned.  Passed  9  April,  1658.  —  "  I3thly,  not 
to  debauch  or  incite  any  person's  servants,  male  or  female,  or  to  harbor  them,  or  fugi 
tives  and  strangers,  longer  than  24  hours  without  notifying  the  Fiscal,  Magistrates,  or 
Schouts,  and  all  servant  men  and  women  remaine  bound  to  fulfill  and  complete  their 
contracts,  on  pain  of  arbitrary  correction,  according  to  the  Ordinance  of  the  6  October, 
1648."  —  O  Laws  of  New  Netherlands,  344. 

20.  Virginia  :  —  How  to  know  a  runnaway  servant.    [§  3.] 

1658-9,  March.  Act  III.  "//  is  enacted  and  ordained 'that  the  master  of  everie  such 
runaway  shall  cutt,  or  cause  to  be  cutt,  the  hair  of  all  such  runnawayes  close  above  their 
ears,  whereby  they  may  be  with  more  ease  discovered  and  apprehended."  —  O  Statutes 
at  Large.  Hening,  Linus  of  Virginia,  I.  517. 


1656-1665.]  Colonial  Laws  relative  to  Fugitives.  93 

21.  Virginia  :  —  Payment  of  Dutch  shipmasters. 

1659-60,  March.  Act  XV.  An  Act  for  the  Pay  of  Dutch  Masters  bringing  in  Runn- 
away  Servants.  Whenever  a  master  shall  refuse  to  pay  the  cost  of  returning  a  runn- 
away  from  the  Dutch,  the  payment  shall  be  made  by  the  secretary  at  his  office. — 
Statutes  at  Large.  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  I.  539. 

22.  Virginia :  —  Apprehension  of  runaways. 

1660-61,  March.  Act  X.  Apprehending  of  Runnawayes.  —  "Whereas  the  pursuit 
and  takeing  of  runnaways  is  hindered  chiefly  by  the  neglect  of  constables  in  making 
search  according  to  their  warrants,  Bee  itt  enacted  that  every  constable  shall  make 
diligent  search  and  inquiry  through  his  precincts,  and  what  constable  soever  shall  upon 
search  apprehend  such  runaways  shall  receive  from  the  master  of  the  servant  for  his 
encouragement  two  hundred  pounds  of  tobaccoe,  and  if  any  constable  shall  neglect  he 
shall  be  fined  three  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  of  tobaccoe  and  caske  according  to 
former  act."  —  O  Statutes  at  Large.  Hening*  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  21. 

23.  Virginia  :  —  English  runnaway  with  negroes.     [§  3.] 

1660-1,  March.  Act  XIII.  "  Bee  itt  enacted  that  in  case  any  English  servant  shall 
runaway  in  company  with  any  negroes  who  are  incapable  of  making  satisfaction  by 
addition  of  time,  Bee  itt  en.icted  that  the  English  so  running  away  in  company  with  them 
shall  serve  for  the  time  of  the  said  negroes  absence  as  they  are  to  do  for  their  owne 
by  a  former  act  "  —  O  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  26. 

24.  Virginia  :  —  Glocester  to  have  jurisdiction  over  runaways. 

1660-1,  March.  It  was  ordered  that  the  county  of  Glocester  have  the  power  to 
make  such  laws  for  the  recovering  of  runaways  as  shall  be  found  necessary  and  con 
venient.  —  Statutes  at  Large,  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  35. 

25.  Virginia  :  — Runaway  servants. 

1661-2,  March.  Act  CII.  Runaways.  —  Penalties  for  running  away  are  the  same 
as  in  former  acts.  English  servants  if  running  away  with  negroes,  and  the  negroes  die 
or  be  lost,  shall  pay  either  four  thousand  five  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  and  caske, 
or  four  years  service  for  every  negro  so  lost  or  dead.  —  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  117. 

26.  Maryland  :  —  Against  runaways. 

1662.  Maryland  Archives,  Assembly  Proceedings,  451. 

27.  Virginia  :  —Pursuit  of  runaways  to  the  Dutch. 

1663,  September.     Act  VIII.   "  An  Act  concerning  the  pursuit  of  runawayes."     It 
is  enacted  that  runaways  are  to  be  pursued  at  the  public  expense,  and,  if  they  have 
escaped  to  the  Dutch,  letters  are  to  be  written  to  the  Governors  of  those  Plantations 
to  return   the   runaways.     Expenses  are  to  be  paid  according  to  the  provisions  of  a 
former  act.  — Statutes  at  Large.     Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  187. 

28.  Maryland  :  —  Against  English  servants. 

1663,  October.     Maryland  Archives,  Assembly  Proceedings,  489. 

29.  New  Netherlands  :  —  Quakers,  etc.  refused  admission  to  colony. 
1663,  May  17.     Ordinance  of  the  Director  General  and  Council  of  New  Netherland 

prohibiting  the  bringing  of  Quakers  and  other  Strollers  into  New  Netherland.  Passed 
17  May  1663.  —  "The  Director  General  and  Council,  therefore,  do  hereby  Order  and 
command  all  Skippers,  Sloop  captains  and  others,  whomsoever  they  may  be,  not  to 
convey  or  bring,  much  less  to  land  within  this  government,  any  such  Vagabonds,  Quak 
ers  and  other  Fugitives,  whether  Men  or  Women,  until  they  have  first  addressed  them 
selves  to  the  government,  etc.  ...  on  the  pain  of  the  Importers  forfeiting  a  fine  of 
Twenty  pounds  Flemish  for  every  person,"  etc.  —  O  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New 
Netherlands,  439. 

30.  Virginia  :  —  Entertainment  of  runaways. 

1666,  October.  Act  IX.  "  An  act  against  entertayners  of  runaways."  Penalty  for 
entertaining  runaways  increased  to  sixty  pounds  of  tobacco  for  every  day  and  night 
he  or  thev  shall  be  harbored.  —  Statutes  at  Large.  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  239. 


94  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Colonial  Laws.  LAPP.  A. 

31.   Maryland  :  —  Runaways  and  their  entertainers. 

1666,  May.  "  An  Act  providing  agl  Runaways,  and  all  such  as  shall  Entertayn  them. 
Whereas  there  was  an  act  providing  against  Runnawaies  made  in  the  year  1650,  and 
another  act  made  in  the  year  1662,  both  which  acts  being  adjudged  insufficient  Satisfaccon 
for  the  reparacon  of  their  respective  Masters,  mrssrse,  Dame,  or  overseers  damages 
sustained  by  their  servt  running  from  them,  Be  it  enacted  by  the  right  honorble,  the 
Lord  Propry,  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  upper  and  Lower  House  of  this  present 
general  assembly,  that  from  and  after  the  publicacon  hereof  any  Servant  or  Servants 
whatsoever  unlawfully  absenting  themselves  from  their  said  Master,  Mistress,  Dame,  or 
overseer,  shall  serve  for  every  day  10.  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  Authority 
aforesaid  that  any  Masted,  Mistress,  dame,  or  Overseer  that  shall  entertain  any  servant 
unlawfully  absenting  himselve  as  aforesaid,  having  been  forewarned  by  the  Master,  mis 
tress,  Dame,  or  Overseer  of  the  said  servant,  shall  be  fined  for  the  first  night  five  hun 
dred  pounds  of  Casked  tobacco,  for  the  second  one  thousand  pounds  of  casked  tobacco, 
for  every  other  night  fifteen  hundred  pounds  of  casked  tobacco,  the  one  half  to  the  Lord 
Proprietor,  the  other  to  the  informer,  or  them  that  shall  sue  for  the  same  within  any 
Court  of  Record  within  this  province,  to  be  Recovered  by  action  of  debt,  plaint  or  In- 
formacon  wherein  no  Essoyne,  protection  or  wager  of  Lawe  to  be  allowed,  Provided 
that  this  Act  nor  anything  therein  conteynd  shall  not  be  adjudged  to  the  predudice  of 
any  person  or  persons  that  shall  apprehend  any  Runaway  servants  who  are  hereby 
required  to  use  the  best  endeavors  to  Convey  them  to  their  owners  or  next  justice  of 
the  peace  to  be  conveyed  from  constable  to  constable  until  they  be  delivered  to  their 
said  owners,  if  then  living  within  this  province.  This  act  to  continue  for  3  years,  or  to 
the  end  of  the  next  general  assembly  which  shall  first  come."  —  O  Maryland  Arc/lives, 
Assembly  Proceedings,  147. 

32.  New  Jersey    —  Fugitive  servants. 

1668,  May  30.  Acts  passed  and  assented  unto  by  the  Governor,  Council,  and 
Burgess  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Province  of  New-Caesarea,  or  New  Jersey, 
the  30th  Day  of  May,  Anno  Domini  1668.  "  Concerning  Fugitives,  It  is  Enacted  by  the 
same  Authority,  that  every  Apprentice  and  Servant  that  shall  depart  and  absent  them 
selves  from  their  Master  and  Dames,  without  leave  first  obtained,  shall  be  judged  by 
the  Court  to  double  the  Time  of  such  their  Absence,  by  future  Service  over  and  above 
other  Damages  and  costs  which  Master  and  Dame  shall  sustain  by  such  unlawful 
Departure. 

"  And  it  is  also  enacted,  that  whosoever  shall  be  proved  to  have  transported,  or  to  have 
contrived  the  Transportation  of  any  such  Apprentice  or  Servant  shall  be  fined  Five 
Pounds,  and  all  such  Damages  as  the  Court  shall  Judge,  and  that  the  Master  or  Dame 
can  make  appear,  and  if  not  able,  to  be  left  to  the  Judgement  of  the  Court."  —  O  ATcw 
Jersey  Laws,  82. 

33.  Virginia  :  —  Runaways. 

1668,  September.     Act  IV.   About  Runawayes.     Moderate  corporal  punishment  in 
flicted  by  the  master  or  magistrate  shall  not   deprive  the  master  of  the  satisfaction 
allowed  by  the  law.  — Statutes  at  Large,     Hcning,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  266. 

34.  Virginia  :  —  Runaways, 

1669,  October.      Act   VIII.    Against    Runawayes.      "Be   it  therefore   enacted  that 
whosoever  apprehends  any  runaways,  whether  servant  by  indenture,  custome  or  cove 
nant,  not  haveing  a  legall  passe,  by  those  in  every  county  that  shall  be  appointed  to  give 
passes,  or  a  note  from  his  master,  shall  have  a  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco  allowed  him 
by  the  publique,  which  tobacco  shall  be  repaid  by  the  service  of  the  servant  to  the 
country  when  free  from  his  master,  and  by  the  hired  ffreeman  immediately  after  ex 
piration  of  his  covenant  to  the  man  that  apprehends." 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted  that  he  that  takes  up  such  runaway  is  hereby  enjoyned 


1666-1682.]  Colonial  Laws  relative  to  Fugitives.  95 

ffirst  to  carry  him  before  the  next  justice  who  is  to  take  cognizance  of  his  good  service, 
and  to  certify  it  in  the  next  assembly,  and  then  to  deliver  him  to  the  constable  of  the 
parish  where  that  justice  dwells,  who  is  to  convey  him  to  the  next  constable,  till  he  be 
retorned  to  his  master,  and  that  each  constable  upon  receipt  of  such  runaway  give  his 
receipt,  and  if  escape  be  made  from  any  constable,  the  delinquent  constable  to  pay  one 
thousand  pounds  of  tobacco ;  and  for  the  reimburseing  the  publique  with  the  tobacco 
disbursed  to  the  taker  up."  —  O  Statutes  at  Large.  Hcning,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  273. 

35.  Virginia  :  —  Apprehension  of  Runaways. 

1670,  October.  Act  I.  An  Act  concerning  runaways.  Reward  for  apprehending 
runaways  is  reduced  to  two  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco.  Servants  are  to  serve  four 
months  for  every  two  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco.  Masters  who  fail  to  cut  their 
servants'  hair  after  twice  running  away  shall  be  fined  two  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco. 
Every  constable  through  whose  hands  a  runaway  passes  is  to  whip  the  servant  severely. 
Constables  allowing  runaways  to  escape  shall  pay  four  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco. 
Masters  must  not  allow  their  servants  to  go  free  until  the  time  of  service  has  been 
worked  out.  —  Statutes  at  Large.  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  277. 

36.  Virginia  :  —  Reward  to  the  first  taker  up  of  runaways. 

1670,  October.     Act  XIII.    Runawayes.    Only  the  first  taker  up  of  a  runaway  shall 
be  rewarded.  —  Statutes  at  Large.     Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  283. 

37.  Virginia:  —  Apprehension  of  Runaways.     [§  8.] 

1672,  October.  Act  VIII.  An  Act  for  the  apprehension  and  suppression  of  runa- 
wayes,  negroes  and  slaves.  Runaways  resisting  may  be  killed  or  wounded,  and  if  they 
die  from  the  effects  of  a  wound  the  public  shall  pay  the  owner,  but  the  person  inflicting 
the  injury  is  not  to  be  questioned.  Indians  shall  be  rewarded  by  twenty  armes  length 
of  Roanoake  or  the  value  thereof  in  goods  for  the  apprehension  of  a  runaway.  Act  is 
to  continue  in  force  only  until  the  next  assembly.  —  Statutes  at  Large.  Hening,  Laws 
of  Virginia,  II.  299. 

38.  Maryland  :  —  Apprehension  of  runaways. 

1671,  April.     The  three  acts  of  1650,  1662,  and  1666  have  not  proved  sufficient  en 
couragement  to  people  to  apprehend  runaways,  therefore  a  statute  against  runaways 
and  such  persons  that  shall  give  them  entertainment  and  others  that  shall  travel  without 
passes  is  enacted. — Maryland  Archives,  Assembly  Proceedings,  298. 

39.  New  Jersey  :  —  Fugitive  servants  and  apprentices. 

1675,  November.     "XXXIII.    Concerning  Fugitives,  It  is  enacted  by  the  same  Au 
thority,  that  every  Apprentice  and  Servant  that  shall  depart  and  absent  themselves 
from  their  Masters  or  Dames,  without  leave  first  obtaind,  shall  be  judged  by  the  court 
to  double  the  Time  of  such  their  Absence,  by  future  Service,  over  and  above  other 
Damages  and  Costs  which  the  Master  and  Dame  shall  sustain  by  such  unlawful   De 
parture.     XXXIV.   And  it  is  further  enacted,  that  whosoever  shall  be  proved  to  have 
transported   or  contrived  the    Transportation   of  any   such    Apprentice,   Servant,  or 
Slave,  shall  be  fined  Five  Pounds,  and  all  such  Damages  as  the  Court  shall  judge, 
and  that  the  Master  or  Dame  can  make  appear,  and  if  not  able  to  be  left  to  the  Judge 
ment  of  the  Court.     It  is  further  enacted,  that  every  Inhabitant  that  shall  harbour  or 
entertain  any  such  Apprentice,  Servant,  or  Slave,  and  knowing  that  he  hath  absented 
himself  from  his  Service  upon   Proof  thereof,  shall  forfeit  to  their  Master  or  Dame 
Ten  Shillings  for  every  days  Entertainment  or  Concealment,  and  if  not  able  to  satisfy, 
to  be  liable  to  the  Judgement  of  the  Court."  —  New  Jersey  Laws,  109. 

40.  Maryland  :  —  Runaways. 

1676,  June.     An  Act  against  runaways.  — Law1;  of  Maryland,  Bacon,  Index. 

41.  East  New  Jersey  :  —  Fugitive  servants. 

1682,  March.  Laws  passed  by  General  Assembly  in  East  New  Jersey.  Chap.  IX 
A  Bill  against  fugitive  Servants,  and  entertainers  of  them.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Gov- 


96  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Colonial  Laws.  [APP.  A. 

ernor,  Council,  and  Deputies  in  General  Assembly  met,  and  by  the  Authority  of  the 
same,  that  every  Apprentice,  or  Servant,  that  shall  depart  or  absent  themselves  from 
their  Master  or  Mistress,  without  leave  first  obtained,  shall  be  adjudged  by  the  Court  to 
double  the  Time  of  such  their  absence  by  future  Service,  besides  all  Costs  and  Damages, 
which  the  master  or  mistress  shall  have  sustained  by  such  unlawful  Departure.  Be  it 
further  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid,  that  whosoever  shall  knowingly  transport  or 
contrive  the  Transportation  of  any  Apprentice,  Servant,  or  Slave,  or  be  any  aiding  or 
assisting  thereto,  and  be  thereof  lawfully  convicted,  shall  be  fined  Five  Pounds,  and 
make  full  Satisfaction  to  the  master  or  mistress  of  such  Apprentice,  Servant,  or  Slave, 
for  all  Costs  or  Damages  which  the  said  master  or  mistress  can  make  appear  to  have 
thereby  sustained.  Be  it  further  enacted  By  the  Authority  aforesaid,  that  every  Inhab 
itant,  who  shall  entertain,  or  afford  any  manner  of  Relief  to  such  Apprentice,  Servant, 
or  Slave,  knowing  that  he  hath  absented  himself  as  aforesaid,  except  of  real  Charity, 
and  thereof  be  lawfully  convicted,  shall  pay  to  the  master  or  mistress  of  such  Servant 
Ten  Shillings  for  every  Days  Entertainment  and  concealment,  and  be  fined  accord 
ing  to  the  Discretion  of  the  Court."  —  Acts  of  the  Proprietary  Government  of  New 
Jersey,  238. 

42.  New  Jersey  :  —  Prevention  of  runaways. 

1683.  No  title  given.  General  Assembly.  VI.  "  And  for  the  preventing  Servants 
running  away  from  their  Masters,  and  other  Vagabonds,  Be  it  hereby  enacted  by  the  au 
thority  aforesaid,  that  all  Magistrates,  Officiers,  Ordinary  Keepers,  and  other  Inhabitants 
within  this  Province,  take  special  notice  of  all  suspicious  Travellers,  and  require  their 
pass  or  certificates,  under  the  Hand  and  Seal  of  the  Magistrate  or  Magistrates,  or  Publick 
Notary  of  the  Place  of  their  last  Abode,  to  satisfy  the  clearness  of  his,  her,  or  their 
coming  away,  and  for  want  of  such  Pass  or  Certificate,  to  secure  such  Person  or  Per 
sons  into  the  Custody  of  the  next  constable;  which  Person  and  Persons  so  to  be  se 
cured,  or  their  Masters,  shall  pay  such  Charge  and  Trouble  as  the  Person  or  Persons 
shall  be  put  to,  in  the  securing  them  as  aforesaid,  before  they  shall  be  discharged,  at 
the  Discretion  of  two  or  more  of  the  Magistrates  of  the  said  Province."  —  O  Acts  of  the 
Proprietary  Governments  of  New  Jersey  >  477- 

43.  South  Carolina  .  —  Prevention  of  runaways. 

1683,  Nov.  7.     An  Act  to  prevent  Runaways.     Title  only  preserved.     Table  of  con 
tents. —  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  II. 

44.  Virginia  :  —  Repeal  of  law  of  1663,  September. 

1684,  April.     Act  III.    An  act  repealing  the  act  concerning  the  persuit  of  runawayes. 
The  law  of  September,  1663,  has  been  found  inconvenient  in  practice,  it  is  therefore 
repealed.  —  Statutes  at  Large.     Hcning,  Laws  of  Virginia,  III.  12. 

45.  East  New  Jersey  :  — Runaway  servants.     [§  2.] 

1686,  April.  Chap.  XI.  An  Act  concerning  Runaway  Servants.  Whereas  the  secur 
ing  of  Servants  that  Runaway,  or  otherwise  absent  themselves  from  their  Masters  lawful 
Occasions,  is  found  a  material  encouragement  to  such  Persons  as  come  into  this  country 
to  settle  Plantations  and  Populate  the  Province  ;  for  the  better  encouragement  of  such 
Persons,  Be  it  therefore  enacted  by  the  Governor  and  Council  and  Deputies  now  met  in 
General  Assembly,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  same,  that  if  any  Servant  or  Servants, 
Prentices  or  Covenant  Servants,  Run  away  or  absent  him  or  herself  unlawfully  from 
their  Masters  or  Mistress'  Service,  being  taken  up  or  secured,  so  that  the  master  or 
mistress  hath  him  or  her  again,  for  the  better  Encouragement  of  such  Person  or  Per 
sons  so  securing  him  or  them,  they  shall  have  Twenty  Shilling's  paid  him  or  them," 
etc.  —  New  Jersey  Laws,  292. 

46.  Virginia  :  Law  of  1670  amended. 

1686,  October.  Act  I.  Slight  change  in  making  out  the  certificate  for  apprehension 
of  runaway.  — Statutes  at  Large.  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  III.  29. 


1682-1705-]  Colonial  Laws  relative  to  Fugitives.  97 

47.  South  Carolina  :  —  Inhibition  of  trade  with  runaways. 

1691.  An  act  inhibiting  the  tradeing  with  Servants  and  Slaves.  "And  it  is  alsoe 
enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  if  any  servant  or  servants  shall  at  any  tyme  or 
tymes  hereafter  absent  or  withdraw  him  or  themselves  from  his,  her,  or  their  master  or 
mistresses  service,  such  servant  or  servants  soe  offending  shall  for  every  naturall  clay 
they  shall  soe  absent  themselves  serve  one  whole  weeke,  and  for  every  weeke,  if  they 
shall  att  any  one  tyme  soe  long  absent  themselves,  one  whole  yeare  to  theire  master  or 
mistresse,  over  and  above  their  contracted  tyme  of  servitude."  —  O  Statutes  at  Large 
of  South  Carolina,  II.  53. 

48.  Pennsylvania  :  —  Regulation  of  servants. 

1700.  An  Act  for  the  better  Regulation  of  Servants  in  this  Province  and  Territories. 
"And  for  the  Prevention  of  Servants  quitting  their  masters  Service,  Be  it  enacted  by  the 
Authority  aforesaid,  that  if  any  Servant  shall  absent  him  or  herself  from  the  Service  of 
their  Master  or  Owner  for  the  Space  of  one  Day,  or  more,  without  Leave  first  obtained 
for  the  same,  every  such  Servant  shall,  for  every  such  Days  absence,  be  obliged  to 
serve  Five  Days  after  the  Expiration  of  his  or  her  Time,  and  shall  further  make  such 
Satisfaction  to  his  or  her  Master  or  Owner  for  the  Damages  and  Charges  sustained  by 
such  Absence  as  the  respe'ctive  County  Courts  shall  see  meet,  who  shall  order  as  well 
the  Time  to  be  served,  as  other  Recompence  for  Damages  sustained.  And  whosoever 
shall  apprehend  or  take  up  any  Runaway  Servant,  and  shall  bring  him  or  her  to  the 
Sheriff  of  the  County,  such  Person  shall  for  every  such  Servant,  if  taken  up  within 
Ten  miles  of  the  Servants  abode,  receive  Ten  Shillings;  and  if  Ten  miles  or  upwards, 
Twenty  Shillings  Reward  of  the  said  Sheriff,  who  is  hereby  required  to  pay  the  same, 
and  forthwith  to  send  Notice  to  the  master  or  Owner,  of  whom  he  shall  receive  Five 
Shillings  Prison  Fees  upon  the  Delivery  of  the  said  Servant,  together  with  all  other 
Disbursements  and  reasonable  Charges  for  and  upon  the  same."  —  O  Province  Laws  of 
Pennsylvania,  I.  5. 

49.  New  York  :  —  Regulation  of  slaves. 

1702.  An  Act  for  regulating  Slaves.  "  And  be  it  further  enacted,  etc.,  That  no  Per 
son  or  Persons  whatsoever  do  hereafter  Employ,  Harbour,  Conceal  or  Entertain  other 
Men's  Slaves  at  their  House,  Out-house,  or  Plantation,  without  the  consent  of  their 
master  or  mistress,  either  signified  to  them  verbally,  or  by  Certificate  in  writing,  under 
the  said  Master  or  Mistress'  Hand  upon  Forfeiture  of  Five  Pounds  for  every  Night  or 
Day,  to  the  Master  or  Mistress  of  such  Slave  or  Slaves,  so  that  the  Penalty  of  such 
Slave  do  not  exceed  the  value  of  the  said  Slave.  And  if  any  Person  or  Persons  what 
soever  shall  be  found  guilty  of  Harbouring,  Entertaining,  or  Concealing  of  any  Slave, 
or  assisting  to  the  Conveying  them  away,  if  such  Slave  shall  happen  to  be  lost,  dead1,  or 
otherwise  distroyed,  such  Person  or  Persons,  so  Harbouring,  Entertaining,  Concealing, 
Assisting  or  Conveying  of  them  away,  shall  be  also  liable  to  pay  the  Value  of  such  Slave 
to  the  master  or  mistress,  to  be  recovered  by  Action  of  Debt,  in  manner  aforesaid."  — 
O  Acts  of  Province  of  New  York  from  1691  to  1718,  p.  58. 

50.  New  York  :  —  Punishment  of  runaways  to  Canada.     [§  8.] 

1705.  An  act  to  prevent  the  Running  away  of  Negro  Slaves  out  of  the  City  and 
County  of  Albany,  to  the  French  at  Canada.  "  Whereas  the  City  and  County  of 
Albany  are  the  Frontiers  of  this  Province  toward  the  French  of  Canada ;  and  that  it  is 
of  great  concern  to  this  Colony,  during  this  time  of  War  with  the  French,  that  no  Intel 
ligence  be  carried  from  the  said  City  and  County  to  the  French  at  Canada:  ...  Be  it 
enacted,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted  by  his  Excellency  the  Governor,  Council  and  Assembly, 
etc.,  that  all  and  every  Negro  Slave  or  Slaves,  belonging  to  any  of  the  Inhabitants  of  the 
city  and  county  of  Albany,  who  shall  from  and  after  the  First  Day  of  August  of  this 
present  year  of  our  Lord,  One  thousand  seven  hundred  and  five,  be  found  traveling 
Forty  miles  above  the  City  of  Albany,  at  or  above  a  certain  place  called  Sarachtoge 

7 


98  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Colonial  Laws.  [APP.  A. 

(unless  in  Company  of  his,  her,  or  their  Master,  Mistress,  or  such  employed  by  them, 
or  either  of  them),  and  be  thereof  convicted  by  the  Oaths  of  Two  or  more  credible 
Witnesses,  before  the  Court  of  Sessions  of  the  Peace  of  the  said  City  and  County 
(which  Court  of  Sessions  are  hereby  Authorized  and  Impowered  to  hear  and  determine 
the  same,  in  manner  aforesaid,  and  thereupon  to  award  execution),  he,  she,  or  they  so 
Convicted,  shall  suffer  the  Pains  of  Death,  as  in  cases  of  Felony."  —  Acts  of  Province 
of  New  York,  77. 

51.  New  York  :  —  Act  of  1702  revived. 

1705.  An  act  for  Reviving  and  continuing  an  Act,  Intituled,  An  Act  for  Regulating 
Slaves,  1702  (expired  in  1712).  —  Acts  of  the' Province  of  New  York,  79. 

52.  Virginia  :  —  Runaway  servants  and  slaves. 

1705,  October.  Chap.  XLIX.  An  Act  concerning  Servants  and  Slaves.  XXI.  Pen 
alty  for  entertaining  runaway  servants  without  a  certificate  shall  be  for  every  day  sixty 
pounds  of  tobacco.  XXIII.  Persons  rewarded  for  taking  up  runaway  according  to 
the  distance.  —  Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  II.  447. 

53.  Massachusetts  Bay  :  —  Regulation  of  free  negroes.     [§  4.] 

1707.  An  Act  for  the  regulating  of  free  negroes.  "Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted, 
that  every  free  negro  or  mulatto  who  shall  harbour  or  entertain  any  negro  or  mulatto 
servant  in  his  or  her  house,  without  the  leave  or  consent  of  their  respective  masters  or 
mistresses,  shall  forfeit  and  pay  the  sum  of  five  shillings  to  the  use  of  the  poor  of  the 
town,  for  each  offence."  —  Charters  and  General  Laws  of  the  Colony  and  Province  of 
Massachiisetts  Bay,  386. 

54      South  Carolina  :  —  For  the  better  ordering  of  slaves. 

1712.  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  II.  381. 

55.  New  Jersey  :  —  Regulation  of  slaves 

1713.  An  Act  for  Regulating  of  Slaves.     Sec.  2.    "Negroes,  etc.,  not  having  a  pass 
maybe  taken  up  if  5  miles  from  Home  whipped,  and  Persons  so  taking  up  have  5;." 
Sec.  3.     "Negro  belonging  to  another  Province  not  having  license,  to  be  whipped, 
and  the  Taker  of  them  to  have  IDS."  —  Acts  of  the  Assembly  of  New  Jersey,  18. 

56.  New  Jersey  :  —  Regulation  of  white  servants 

1713.  An  Act  for  regulating  of  White  Servants,  and  taking  up  Soldiers  and  Seamen 
deserting  Her  Majestys  Service,  and   coming  into  this  Colony.     Sec.  2.     "  Servants 
absenting  without  leave  to  be  adjudged  by  any  one  Justice  to  serve  double  the  time, 
and  pay  or  serve  for  costs."     Sec.  3.    "  Those  who  counsel,  aid,  etc.  such  Servants  to 
runaway,  to  forfeit  10^","  etc.     Sec.  4.    "  Those  who  knowingly  conceal  them,  to  pay 
10.?.  per  Day."     Sec.  5.    "Those  who  take  up  Runaways  and  carry  them  back  to  have 
i$s.  and  6d.  per  mile  for  so  doing."     Sec.  8.    "  Any  Boatman,  etc.,  who  shall  carry  them 
into  or  out  of  this  Province,  etc.,  not  having  Passes,  as  aforesaid,  and  Publick-House- 
keepers  entertaining  them  to  forfeit  40^.,"  etc.  —  Acts  pf the  Assembly  of  New  Jersey,  24. 

57.  Rhode  Island :  —  Ferriage  of  runaways.     [§  4.] 

1714,  Oct.  27.    "  Whereas,  several  negroes  and  mulatto  slaves  that  have  run  away 
from  their  masters  or  mistresses,  under  pretence  of  being  sent  or  employed  by  their 
masters  or  mistresses  upon  some  service,  and  have  been   carried  over  the  ferries,  out 
and  into  the  colony,  and  suffered  to  pass  through  the  several  towns  under  the  afore 
said  pretence,  to  the  considerable  damage  and  charge  of  their  owners,  and  many  times 
to  the  loss  of  their  slaves;  —  Be  it  therefore  enacted  by  this  Assembly,  and  by  the 
authority  thereof  it  is  enacted,  that  no  ferryman  or  boatman  whatsoever,  within  this 
colony,  shall  carry  or  bring  any  slave  as  aforesaid  over  their  ferries,  without  a  certifi 
cate  under  the  hands  of  their  masters  or  mistresses,  or  some  person  in  authority,  upon 
the  penalty  of  paying  all  costs  and  damages  their  said  masters  or  mistresses  shall  sus 
tain  thereby;  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  twenty  shillings  for  the  use  of  the  colony,  for  each 
offence,  as  aforesaid.     The  said  fine  to  be  recovered  by  any  two  justices  of  the  peace, 


1705-1718.]  Colonial  Laws  relative  to  Fugitives.  99 

upon  confession  or  conviction  of  the  said  fact  ;  and  all  persons  in  authority,  and 
other  His  Majesty's  Subjects  in  this  colony  knowing  of  any  such  slaves  traveling 
through  their  township,  wherein  they  dwell,  without  a  certificate,  as  aforesaid,  they 
are  hereby  required  to  cause  such  slave  to  be  examined  and  secured  so  as  the  owner 
may  be  notified  thereof,  and  have  his  slave  again,  paying  the  costs  and  charges  that 
shall  accrue  thereon." — Proceedings  of  General  Assembly,  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and 
Providence  Plantations,  Providence,  177  ;  Records  of  Colony  of  Rhode  Island^  177. 

58.  South  Carolina  :  —  Additional  Act  to  Act  of  1712. 

1714.  Statutes  at  Large  of  Smith  Carolina,  II.  620. 

59.  New  York  :  —  Act  of  1705  revived.     [§  8.] 

1715.  An  Act  for  Reviving  and  Continuing  an  Act,  Intituled  an  act  to  prevent  the 
Running  away  of  Negro  Slaves  out  of  the  city  and  county  of  Albany  to  the  French  at 
Albany,  1705.  —  Laws  Province  of  New  York,  218. 

60.  North  Carolina :  —  Servants  and  slaves. 

1715.  An  Act  concerning  servants  and  Slaves.  Title  only  given.  —  Laws  of  Worth 
Carolina,  21,  27. 

61.  New  Hampshire :  —  Runaway  minors  and  servants. 

1715.  An  Act  for  preventing  Men's 'Sons  or  Servants  absenting  themselves  from  their 
Parents  or  Masters  Service  without  Leave.  —  "  That  no  commander  of  any  private  man 
of  war,  or  master  of  any  merchant  ship  or  vessel  coming  into,  tarrying  or  abiding  in,  or 
going  forth  of  any  port,  harbour,  or  place  within  this  province,  shall  receive,  harbour, 
entertain,  conceal  or  secure  on  board  such  ship  or  other  vessel,  or  suffer  to  be  there 
harbour'd  or  detain'd  any  man's  son,  being  under  age  or  apprentice  or  covenant  ser 
vant  (knowing  him  to  be  such,  or  after  notice  thereof  given)  without  license  or  consent 
of  his  parent  or  master  in  writing  under  his  hand  first  had  and  obtain'd,  on  pain  of  for 
feiting  the  sum  of  five  pounds  per  week,  and  so  proportionally  for  a  longer  or  shorter 
time,  that  any  son,  apprentice,  or  servant  shall  be  held,  harbour'd,  conceal'd,  or  de 
tain'd  on  board  any  such  ship  or  other  vessel,  as  aforesaid,  without  license  .and  consent 
as  aforesaid ;  the  one  moiety  thereof  to  her  Majesty,  to  be  employed  toward  the  sup 
port  of  the  government  of  the  province,  and  the  other  moiety  unto  the  parent  or  master 
of  such  son,  apprentice  or  servant  that  shall  inform,  or  sue  for  the  same,  in  any  of  her 
majestyjs  courts  of  record,  within  this  province,  by  bill,  plaint,  or  information,  wherein 
no  essoign,  protection  or  wager  of  law  shall  be  allowed.  §  2.  And  be  it  further 
enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  every  apprentice  or  covenant  servant  who 
shall  unlawfully  absent  himself  from  his  master,  and  enter  himself  on  board  any  ship 
or  vessel,  as  aforesaid,  with  intent  to  leave  his  master's  service,  or  incline  there  more 
than  the  space  of  twenty-four  hours,  and  be  thereof  convicted  before  any  two  of  her 
majesty's  justices  of  the  peace,  or  in  general  sessions,  within  this  province,  shall  forfeit 
unto  his  master  such  further  service,  from  and  after  the  expiration  of  the  term 
which  his  said  master  had  in  him  at  the  time  of  his  departure  as  the  said  court  shall 
order,  not  exceeding  one  year."  —  O  Acts  and  Laws  of  His  Majesty's  Province  of  New 
Hampshire,  40. 

62.  South  Carolina  :  —  Additional  Act  against  runaways. 

1717.  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  III.  39. 

63.  Massachusetts  Bay  :  —  Transportation  of  apprentices  and  servants. 

1718,  October.    An  Act  for  the  preventing  of  persons  under  age,  apprentices  or  ser 
vants,  being  transported  out  of  the  province  without  the  consent  of  their  masters,  parents, 
or  guardians.     "Every  master  of  any  outward  bound  ship  or  vessel  that  shall  hereafter 
carry  or  transport  out  of  this  province  any  person  under  age,  or  bought  or  hired  ser 
vant  or  apprentice,  to  any  parts  beyond  the  seas,  without  the  consent  of  such  master, 
parent  or  guardian,  signified  in  writing,  shall  forfeit  the  sum  of  fifty  pounds,"  etc.  — 
Charters  and  Laws  of  the  Colony  and  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  750. 


ioo  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Colonial  Laws.  [APP.  A. 

64.  South  Carolina  :  — Regulation  of  Slaves. 

1722.     An  Act  for  the  better  ordering  and  governing  of  slaves.  — Statutes  at  Large  of 
Soutk  Carolina,  193. 

65.  Pennsylvania  :  —  Regulation  of  negroes. 

1725.  An  Act  for  the  better  Regulating  of  negroes  in  this  province.     "And  be  it 
further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  no  Person  or  Persons  whatsoever  shall 
imploy,  or  knowingly  harbour,  conceal,  or  entertain  other  Peoples  slaves  at  their  Houses, 
Out  Houses,   or  Plantations,   without  the  Masters  or    Owners   consent,  excepting   in 
stress  of  weather  or  other  Extraordinary  Occasion,  under  the  Penalty  of  Thirty  Shil 
lings  for  every  Twenty  four  Hours  he  or  they  shall  entertain  or  harbour  him  or  them 
as  aforesaid."  —  Province  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  1725. 

66    Virginia  :  —  Earlier  act  amended. 

1726,  May.    Chap.  III.   The  clause  in  regard  to  imprisonment  when  slave  would  not 
give  name  of  master  has  proved  very  inconvenient.     Chap.  IV.    An  Act  for  amending 
the  Act  concerning  Servants  and  Slaves;  and  for  the  further  preventing  the  clandestine 
transportation  of  Persons  out  of  this  colony.     IV.    The  sheriff  or  under  sheriff  to  whom 
the  slave  is  committed  shall  cause  a  notice  containing  a  full  description  of  the  runaway 
to  be  posted  on  the  door  of  the  court-house,  and  shall  send  a  copy  to  each  church  or 
chapel  within  the  county  which  shall  be  set  up  "  in  some  open  and  convenient  place  " 
on  every  Lord's  day  for  two  months.     Neglect  on  part  of  the  sheriff  shall  be  fined  five 
hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  ;  on  the  part  of  the  clerk,  two  hundred  pounds.     VI.    Pro 
visions  in  regard  to  transportation.     VIII.    Runaways  may  be  let  out  to  hire  by  the 
keeper  of  the  gaol.     IX.    When  demanded  by  the  owner,  the  person  hireing  shall  de 
liver  up  the  servant.     X.    "  Provided  also,  that  where  the  keeper  of  the  said  public  gaol 
shall,  by  the  direction  of  such  court  or  courts,  as  aforesaid,  let  out  any  such  negro  or  run 
away  to  hire  to  any  person  or  persons  whatsoever,  the  said  keeper  shall,  at  the  time  of 
his  delivery,  cause  a  strong  iron  collar  to  be  put  on  the  neck  of  such  negro  or  runaway, 
with  the  letters  (P.  G.)  stamped  thereon  ;  and  that  thereafter  the  said  keeper  shall  not 
be   answerable   for  any  escape  of   the  said   negro   or  runaway."     XII.    Fees  of   the 
goalers  given.     XIII.    Runaways  from  Maryland  or  Carolina  shall  be  committed  to 
any  public  gaol,  and  the  fees  shall  be  according  to  the  laws  of  the  province  wherein 
the  master  dwells.     XIV.    The  keeper  of  the  gaol  shall  send  descriptions  of  the  run 
away  to  such  places  of  this  dominion  bordering  on  Maryland  or  Carolina  as  shall  be 
agreed  upon.     XV.,  XVI.    Fees  described.     XVIII.    Masters  of  vessels  shall  take  the 
following  oath :  "  I,  A.  B.,  master  of  the  ship  (or  vessel),  do  swear  that  I  will  make  dili 
gent  enquiry  and  search  in  my  said  ship  (or  vessel),  and  will  not  knowingly  or  willingly 
carry,  or  suffer  to  be  carried,  in  my  said  ship,  out  of  this  dominion,  without  such  pass 
as  is  directed  by  law,  any  person  or  persons  whatsoever,  that  I  shall  know  to  be  running 
hence  in  order  to  deceive  their  creditors ;  nor  any  servant  or  slave  that  is  not  attending 
his  or  her  master  or  owner,  or  sent  by  such  master  or  owner.     XX.    For  forging  a  pass 
persons  offending  shall  stand  two  hours  in  the  pillory,  and  receive  thirty  lashes  at  the 
whipping-post.     XXI.   A  white  servant  who  shall  run  away,  change  his  name,  or  dis 
guise  himself  with  intent  to  escape,  shall  serve  six  months  longer  than  his  term  for 
running  away.  —  Statutes  at  Large.     Hening,  Laws  of  Virginia,  IV.  168. 

67.   Connecticut : — Runaway  servants  and  slaves. 

1730  (probably).  An  Act  concerning  Indian,  Mulatto,  and  Negro  Servants  and 
Slaves.  "  That  whatsoever  Negro,  Molatto,  or  Indian  Servant,  or  Servants  shall  be 
found  wandering  out  of  the  Bounds  of  the  Town,  or  Place  to  which  they  belong,  with 
out  a  Ticket  or  Pass  in  writing,  under  the  Hand  of  some  Assistant  or  Justice  of  the 
Peace,  or  under  the  Hand  of  the  Master,  or  Owner  of  such  negro,  molatto,  or  Indian 
Servants  shall  be  deemed  and  Accounted  to  be  Run-aways,  and  may  be  Treated  as  such  ; 
and  every  Person  Inhabiting  this  colony,  Finding  or  Meeting  with  any  such  Negro, 


1722-1740-]  Colonial  Laws  relative  to  Fugitives.  101 

molatto,  or  Indian  Servant  or  Servants,  not  having  a  ticket  as  aforesaid,  is  hereby 
impowered  to  Seize  and  Secure  him,  or  them,  and  Bring  him  or  them  before  the  next 
Authority  to  be  Examined,  and  Returned  to  his,  or  their  master  or  Owner,  who  shall 
satisfy  the  Charge  Accruing  thereby.  And  all  Ferry-Men  within  this  colony,  are  hereby 
Required  not  to  suffer  any  Indian,  molatto  or  negro  servant  without  certificate,  as  afore 
said,  to  pass  over  their  Respective  Ferries,  by  Assisting  them  therein  Directly  or  Indi 
rectly,  on  Penalty  of  paying  a  Fine  of  Twenty  Shillings  for  every  such  Offence."  —  O  Acts 
and  Laws  of  His  Majestic 's  Colony  of  Connecticut,  229. 

68.  New  York  :  —  Slave  insurrections,  etc. 

1730.  An  Act  for  the  more  effectual  preventing  and  punishing  the  conspiracy  and 
Insurrection  of  negroes  and  other  Slaves;  for  the  better  regulating  them,  and  for 
repealing  the  acts  therein  mentioned,  relating  thereto.  Passed  the  29th  of  October, 
1730.  No  fugitive  slave  provision.  Penalty  for  entertaining  Slaves  as  in  1702.  Also 
Persons  who  do  not  discover  those  that  entertain  slaves  shall  pay  Forty  Shillings.  — 
Acts  of  Province  of  New  York,  193. 

69.  South  Carolina :  —  Regulation  of  slaves. 
1735.     Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  III.  405. 

70.  Delaware  :  — Regulation  of  servants  and  slaves. 

1740.  An  Act  for  the  better  regulation  of  Servants  and  Slaves  within  this  govern 
ment  (a).  Sec.  5.  "  Be  it  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  from  such  time  as 
any  servant  shall  absent  him  or  herself  from  his  or  her  masters  or  mistress'  service, 
without  leave  first  obtained  for  the  same,  every  such  servant,  for  such  absence,  and  the 
expenses  of  taking  up,  shall  at  the  expiration  of  the  time  of  his  or  her  servitude,  make 
satisfaction  by  servitude,  according  to  the  judgement  of  any  court  of  Quarter  Sessions 
within  this  government."  Sec.  6.  "  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid, 
that  if  any  person  shall  apprehend  or  take  up  any  runaway  servant  and  carry  him  or 
her  before  the  next  Justice  of  the  Peace  of  the  county  where  such  servant  shall  be  so 
taken  up,  in  order  to  be  sent  to  and  secured  in  the  gaol  of  the  said  county,  for  his  or 
her  master's  or  mistress'  service."  The  sheriff  or  gaoler  shall  then  send  notice  to  the 
servant's  owner,  if  known  ;  if  not,  the  servant  shall  be  advertised  in  some  newspaper  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia.  The  reward  for  taking  up  runaways  shall  be, "  if  ten  miles  dis 
tant  from  the  place  of  the  said  servants  last  abode,  or  under,  the  sum  of  Ten  Shillings, 
if  upwards  of  ten  miles,  the  sum  of  Twenty  Shillings."  "  And  if  the  master  or  owner  of 
such  servant  so  imprisoned  shall,  for  the  space  of  six  weeks  next  after  notice  had  of  his 
or  her  servants  imprisonment,  neglect  or  refuse  to  release  such  servant,  it  shall  and 
may  be  lawful  for  the  said  Sheriff,  and  he  is  hereby  required  and  commanded,  upon  affi 
davit  made  of  the  due  service  of  such  notice,  to  expose  every  such  servant  to  sale  at 
public  vendue,  and  him  or  her  to  sell  to  the  highest  bidder,  for  such  term  and  sum  as 
shall  be  sufficient  for  the  defraying  the  'costs  and  charges  arising  upon  the  apprehend 
ing  and  imprisoning  the  said  servant."  Sec.  7.  "  Suspicious  persons  travelling  without 
a  pass  shall  be  deemed  runaway  servants  and  treated  as  such." —  Laws  of  Delaware, 
211,  212. 

71.  Delaware  :  —  Regulation  of  servants  and  slaves. 

1740.  An  Act  for  the  better  regulatfon  of  Servants  and  Slaves  within  this  Govern 
ment.  "  Sec.  14.  And  be  ii  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  who  so  ever 
shall  take  up  any  negro  or  mulatto  slave  at  above  ten  miles  distance  from  his  or  her 
masters  or  mistress'  dwelling  or  habitation,  and  not  having  leave  in  writing  from  his 
or  her  master  or  mistress,  or  not  being  known  by  the  taker-up  to  be  about  his  or  her 
master's  or  mistress'  business  or  service,  and  shall  convey  him  or  her  to  the  habitation 
of  his  or  her  said  master  or  mistress,  if  known,  such  taker-up  shall  receive  of  the  said 
master  or  mistress,  for  his  reward,  the  sum  of  Five  Shillings,  with  reasonable  charges. 
Sec.  15.  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  no  person  shall 


IO2  Fugitive  Slaves: —  Colonial  Laws.  [APP.  A. 

employ  or  knowingly  harbour,  conceal  or  entertain  another's  servant  or  slave  at  his  or 
her  house  or  plantation  without  the  master  or  owner's  leave  and  consent,  except  in 
distress  of  weather  or  other  extraordinary  occasion  or  accident,  under  the  penalty  of 
Forty  Shillings  for  every  twenty  four  hours  he  or  she  shall  entertain  any  such  servant 
or  slave,  as  afore  said,  and  so  in  proportion  for  any  lesser  time."  —  O  Laws  of  the  State 
of  Delaware,  215,  216. 

72.  South  Carolina  -.  — Regulation  of  slaves. 

1740.  Statutes  at  Large,  South  Carolina,  III.  568. 

73.  North  Carolina :  —  Entertainment  of  runaways,  etc.     [§  3.] 

1741.  XXVII.    Any  person    harbouring  a  runaway  shall  be  prosecuted  and  com 
pelled  to  pay  the  sum  of  twenty-five  pounds  or  serve  the  owner  of  the  slave  or  his 
assigns  five  years.     If  he  actually  carry  away  the  slave,  he  shall  be  convicted  of  felony 
and  suffer  accordingly.     XXVIII.    Seven  shillings  and  sixpence,  Proclamation  money, 
reward  for  taking  up  runaways.     For  every  mile  over  ten,  threepence.     XXXIV.    Run 
aways  when  taken  up  shall  be  whipped.     XXXV.    Constables  must  give  a  receipt  for 
runaway.     Any  failure  shall  be  fined  twenty  shillings,  Proclamation  money,  to  be  paid 
the  church  warden.     XXXVI.     Sheriff  who  shall  hold  a  runaway  longer  than  the  act 
directs  shall  forfeit  five  pounds.      Sheriff  who  allows  a  runaway  to  escape  is  liable 
to  action  from  the  party  grieved.     XXXVIII.   This  article  takes  up  the  fees  of  the 
jailor,  etc.  —  Laws  of  North  Carolina,  89. 

74.  Virginia :  —  Ferriage  of  runaways. 

1748,  Oct.  An  Act  for  the  Settlement  and  Regulation  of  Ferries,  and  for  the.  Despatch 
of  Public  Expresses.  VI.  All  constables  and  their  assistants  charged  with  conducting 
any  runaway  servant  shall  be  passed  ferry  free.  The  ferriage  shall  then  be  paid  by  the 
owners  of  the  runaways.  —  Statutes  at  Large,  Hening,  VI.  22. 

75.  South  Carolina  :   Act  additional  to  Act  of  1740. 
1751.     Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  III.  738. 

76.  Rhode  Island  :  —  Assistance  of  runaways. 

1766-1798.  An  Act  relative  to  Slaves,  and  to  their  Manumission  and  support. — 
Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that  if  any  person  shall  conceal  any  negro  or 
mulatto  slave,  or  shall  in  any  manner  assist  such  slave  in  escaping  from  the  lawful 
authority  of  his  or  her  master,  the  person  so  offending  shall  forfeit  and  pay  the  sum 
of  three  hundred  dollars,  to  be  recovered  by  action  of  debt,  one  moiety  thereof  to 
and  for  the  use  of  the  State,  and  the  other  moiety  thereof  to  and  for  the  use  of  the 
person  who  shall  sue  for  the  same.  —  Laws  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Planta 
tions,  607. 

77.  North  Carolina  :  —  Slave  stealing. 

1779.  An  Act  to  prevent  the  stealing  of  Slaves,  or  by  Violence,  Seduction,  or  any 
other  Means,  taking  or  conveying  away  any  Slave  or  Slaves  the  Property  of  another, 
and  for  other  Purposes  therein  mentioned.  IV.  And  whereas  many  evil  disposed  Per 
sons  frequently  entice  or  persuade  Slaves  (without  any  Intention  to  steal  them)  and 
Servants,  to  absent  themselves  from  their  Master  or  Mistress,  and  often  times  harbour 
and  maintain  runaway  Servants  and  Slaves  ;  Be  it  therefore  fiirther  enacted  by  the 
authority  aforesaid,  that  any  Person  or  Persons  who  shall  hereafter  entice  or  persuade 
any  Servant  or  Slave  to  absent  him  or  herself  from  his  or  her  Master  or  Mistress,  or 
who  shall  harbour  or  maintain  any  runaway  Servant  or  Slave,  shall  for  every  such 
Offence  forfeit  or  pay  to  the  Master  or  Mistress  of  such  Servant  or  Slave,  the  sum  of 
one  hundred  Pounds  current  money,  to  be  recovered  by  Action  of  Debt,  in  any  Juris 
diction  having  Cognizance  thereof ;  and  be  further  liable  to  the  said  master  or  mistress 
in  an  action  for  Damages,  where  in  no  Essoign,  Injunction,  Protection,  or  Wager  of 
Law  shall  be  allowed  or  admitted,  notwithstanding  any  Law,  Usage,  or  Custom  to  the 
contrary.  —  Laws  of  North  Carolina,  371. 


1740-1779-]  Colonial  Laws  relative  to  Fugitives.  103 

78.  Connecticut :  —  Escape  of  negroes  and  servants. 

No  date  given.  An  Act  to  prevent  the  Running  away  of  Indian  and  Negro  Servants. 
"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Governour,  Council,  and  Representatives,  in  General  Court  assem 
bled,  and  by  the  Authority  of  the  same,  that  whatsoever  Negro  or  Indian  Servant  or  Ser 
vants  shall  at  any  time  after  the  publication  hereof  be  found  wandering  out  of  the  Town 
Bounds,  or  Place  to  which  they  belong,  without  a  Ticket  or  Pass  in  writing  under  the  Hand 
of  some  Assistant  or  Justice  of  the  Peace,  or  under  the  Hand  of  the  Master  or  Owner  of 
such  Negro  or  Indian  Servant  or  Servants,  shall  be  deemed  and  accounted  to  be  Run-a- 
ways ;  and  every  person  Inhabiting  in  this  Colony,  finding  or  meeting  with  any  such  Negro 
or  Indian  Servant  or  Servants,  not  having  a  Ticket  as  aforesaid,  is  hereby  impowered 
to  seize  and  secure  him  or  them,  and  bring  him  or  them  before  the  next  authority,  to  be 
examined  and  returned  to  his  or  their  Master  or  Owner,  who  shall  satisfy  the  charge 
accruing  thereby ;  and  all  Ferrymen  within  this  Colony  are  hereby  required  not  to 
suffer  any  Indian  or  Negro  Servant,  without  Certificate  as  aforesaid,  to  pass  over  their 
respective  Ferrys,  by  assisting  of  them  therein  directly  or  indirectly,  on  penalty  of  paying 
a  fine  of  Twenty  Shillings  for  every  such  Offence  to  the  County  Treasury,  to  be  levied 
on  their  estates  upon  non-payment,  by  warrant  from  any  one  Assistant  or  Justice  of  the 
Peace :  And  the  like  methods  shall  or  may  be  used  and  observed  as  to  Vagrant  or 
Suspected  Persons,  found  wandring  from  Town  to  Town,  having  no  Certificate  as  afore 
said,  who  shall  be  seized  and  conveyed  before  the  next  Authority  to  be  Examined  and 
Disposed  of  according  to  Law :  And  if  any  Free  Negroes  shall  travel  without  such 
Certificate  or  Pass,  and  be  stopped,  seized,  or  taken  up,  they  shall  pay  all  Charges 
arising  thereby." —  O  Acts  and  Laws  of  His  Majesty's  Province  of  Connecticut,  87. 

79.  Connecticut :  —  Pursuit  of  runaways. 

No  date  given.  "  It  is  also  ordered,  that  when  any  servants  shall  runn  from  theire 
Masters,  or  any  other  inhabitants  shall  privately  goe  away  with  supition  of  ill  intentions, 
It  shall  bee  lawfull  for  the  next  Magistrate,  or  the  constable  and  two  of  the  chiefest  in 
habitants  where  no  magistrate  is,  to  press  men  and  boates  or  pinnaces,  at  the  publique 
charge,  to  persue  such  persons  by  sea  or  land,  and  bring  them  back  by  force  of  armes." 
—  O  Colonial  Records  of  Connecticut,  I.  539. 

80.  Pennsylvania :  —  Harboring  fugitives. 

Anno  Regni  Duodecimo  Georgii  Regis.  [1726  ?]  An  Act  for  the  better  regulating 
of  Negroes  in  this  Province.  "  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid, 
that  no  Person  or  Persons  whatsoever  shall  Employ,  or  knowingly  harbour,  conceal,  or 
entertain  other  Peoples  Slaves  at  their  Houses,  Out-houses,  or  Plantations,  without  the 
Master  or  Owner's  consent ;  excepting  in  Distress  of  weather  or  other  Extraordinary 
Occasion,  under  the  Penalty  of  Thirty  Shillings  for  every  twenty-four  Hours  he  or  they 
shall  entertain  or  harbour  him  or  them  as  aforesaid."  —  O  Province  Laws  of  Pennsylva 
nia,  325. 


APPENDIX    B. 

NATIONAL  ACTS  AND  PROPOSITIONS  RELATIVE    TO 
FUGITIVE  SLAVES.     1778-1854. 


THIS  Appendix  contains  all  the  important  bills,  acts,  and  treaties  from  the  founda 
tion  of  the  Constitution  to  1860.  Many  minor  propositions  may  be  found  through 
the  foot-notes  to  the  text  of  Chapter  II.  The  figures  in  brackets  [J  refer  back  to  the 
text  of  the  monograph. 

1.  Fugitive  clause  in  treaty  with  the  Delawares. 

1778,  Aug.  7.  Art.  IV.  "  And  it  is  further  agreed  between  the  parties  aforesaid, 
that  neither  shall  entertain  or  give  countenance  to  the  enemies  of  the  other,  or  protect 
in  their  respective  States,  criminal  fugitives,  servants,  or  slaves,  but  the  same  to  appre 
hend,  and  secure  and  deliver  to  the  State  or  States  to  which  such  enemies,  criminals, 
servants,  or  slaves  respectively  belong."  —  Statutes  at  Large,  VII.  14. 

2.  Fugitive  clause  in  the  treaty  of  peace.    [§§  13,  22.] 

1782-83.  1782,  Nov.  13.  Provisional  articles.  1783,  Sept.  3.  Definitive  treaty. 
"  His  Britannic  Majesty  shall,  with  all  convenient  speed,  and  without  causing  any  de 
struction,  or  carrying  away  any  negroes  or  other  property  of  the  American  inhabitants, 
withdraw  all  his  armies,  garrisons,  and  fleets  from  the  said  United  States."  —  Treaties 
and  Conventions,  ed.  of  1889,  pp.  372,  378. 

3.  Fugitive  clauses  in  Indian  treaties.     [§  13.] 
1784-86.     1784,  Oct.  22.    Treaty  with  the  Six  Nations,  Art.  I. 

1785,  Jan.  21.  Treaty  with  the  Wyandots,etc.  Art.  I.  "  All  the  prisoners  white  and 
black"  taken  by  the  Indians  "shall  be  delivered  up"  or  "restored."  —  Statutes  at 
Large,  VII.  15,  16. 

4.  Fugitive  clause  in  King's  ordinance.     [§  14.] 

1785,  April  6.  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Government  of  the  Western  Territory. 
"  Provided  that  always,  upon  the  escape  of  any  person  into  any  of  the  States  described 
in  the  resolve  of  Congress  of  the  twenty-third  day  of  April,  1784,  from  whom  labor  or  ser 
vice  is  lawfully  claimed  in  anyone  of  the  thirteen  original  States,  such  fugitive  might  be 
lawfully  reclaimed  and  carried  back  to  the  person  claiming  his  labor  or  service,  this  re 
solve  notwithstanding."  —  Papers  of  Old  Congress,  XXI.  331,  cited  in  Bancroft,  History 
of  the  United  States  (last  Revision),  VI.  133. 

5.  Fugitive  clauses  in  Indian  treaties.     [§  13.] 

1785,  Nov.  28.    Treaty  with  the  Cherokees,  Art.  I. 

1786,  Jan.  3.    Treaty  with  the  Choctaws,  Art.  I. 
1786,  Jan.  10.    Treaty  with  the  Chickasaws,  Art.  I. 

Identical  clauses.  The  Indians  "  to  restore  all  the  Negroes  and  all  other  property 
taken  during  the  late  war." 

[104] 


1778  I793-1  Treaties  and  First  Act.  105 

1786,  June  31.  Treaty  with  the  Shawanees.     Art.  I.   "  All  prisoners  white  and  black 
taken  in  the  late  war  from  among  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  by  the  Shawance 
nation  shall  be  restored." — Statutes  at  Large,  VII.  18,  21,  25,  26. 

6.  Fugitive  clause  in  Northwest  Ordinance  of  1787.     [§  14  ] 

1787,  July  13.     Art.  VI.   "  There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude 
in  the  said  Territory,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall 
have  been  duly  convicted  ;  provided,  always,  that  any  person  escaping  into  the  same, 
from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  one  of  the  original  States,  such 
fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  his  or  her 
labor  or  service  aforesaid."     Read  first  time,  July  n,  1787.     Passed  July  13,  1787.— 
O  Journals  of  Congress,  XII.  84,  92. 

7.  Fugitive  clause  in  the  Constitution.     [§  15.] 

1787,  Sept.  13.  Art.  IV.  §  2.  "  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under 
the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation 
therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of 
the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due."  —  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United 
States,  I.  1 8. 

8.  Clauses  for  returning  fugitives  in  Indian  treaties. 

1789,  Jan.  7.  Treaty  with  the  Wiandots,  etc.  Art.  I.  "  The  said  nations  agree  to 
deliver  up  all  the  prisoners  now  in  their  hands  (by  what  means  soever  they  may  have 
come  into  their  possession)."  —  Statutes  at  Large,  VII.  28. 

1790-91.  1790,  Apr.  7.  Treaty  with  the  Creeks.  Art.  III.  "The  Creek  Nation 
shall  deliver  ...  all  citizens  of  the  United  States,  white  inhabitants  or  negroes,  who  are 
now  prisoners  in  any  part  of  the  said  nation.  And  if  any  such  prisoners  or  negroes 
should  not  be  delivered  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  June  next  ensuing,  the  governor  of 
Georgia  may  empower  three  persons  to  repair  to  the  said  nation,  in  order  to  claim  and 
receive  such  prisoners  and  negroes." — Statutes  at  Large,  VII.  35. 

1791,  July  2.  Treaty  with  the  Cherokees.  Art.  III.  All  prisoners  to  be  yielded  up 
on  both  sides.  —  Statutes  at  Large,  VII.  36. 

9.  First  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 

1793,  Feb.  12.     An  Act  respecting  fugitives  from  justice  and  persons  escaping  from  the 
service  of  their  masters, 

"  SECTION  I.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  whenever  the  executive  authority  of  any 
state  in  the  Union,  or  of  either  of  the  territories  northwest  or  south  of  the  river  Ohio, 
shall  demand  any  person  as  a  fugitive  from  justice,  of  the  executive  authority  of  any 
such  state  or  territory  to  which  such  person  shall  have  fled,  and  shall  moreover  pro 
duce  the  copy  of  an  indictment  found,  or  an  affidavit  made  Wore  a  magistrate  of  any 
state  or  territory  as  aforesaid,  charging  the  person  so  demanded,  with  having  committed 
treason,  felony  or  other  crime,  certified  as  authentic  by  the  governor  or  chief  magistrate 
of  the  state  or  territory  from  whence  the  person  so  charged  fled,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  executive  authority  of  the  state  or  territory  to  which  such  person  shall  have  fled, 
to  cause  him  or  her  to  be  arrested  and  secured,  and  notice  of  the  arrest  to  be  given  to 
the  executive  authority  making  such  demand,  or  to  the  agent  of  such  authority  appointed 
to  receive  the  fugitive,  and  to  cause  Jhe  fugitive  to  be  delivered  to  such  agent  when 
he  shall  appear  :  But  if  no  such  agent  shall  appear  within  six  months  from  the  time  of 
the  arrest,  the  prisoner  may  be  discharged.  And  all  costs  or  expenses  incurred  in  the 
apprehending,  securing,  and  transmitting  such  fugitive  to  the  state  or  territory  making 
such  demand,  shall  be  paid  by  such  state  or  territory. 

"  SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  any  agent,  appointed  as  aforesaid,  who  shall 
receive  the  fugitive  into  his  custody,  shall  be  empowered  to  transport  him  or  her  to  the 


io6  Ftigitive  Slaves:  —  National  Acts.  [A pp.  B. 

state  or  territory  from  which  he  or  she  shall  have  fled.  And  if  any  person  or  persons 
shall  by  force  set  at  liberty,  or  rescue  the  fugitive  from  such  agent  while  transporting, 
as  aforesaid,  the  person  or  persons  so  offending  shall,  on  conviction,  be  fined  not 
exceeding  five  hundred  dollars,  and  be  imprisoned  not  exceeding  one  year. 

"  SEC.  3.  And  be  it  also  enacted,  That  when  a  person  held  to  labour  in  any  of  the 
United  States,  or  in  either  of  the  territories  on  the  northwest  or  south  of  the  river 
Ohio,  under  the  laws  thereof,  shall  escape  into  any  other  of  the  said  states  or  territory, 
the  person  to  whom  such  labour  or  service  may  be  due,  his  agent  or  attorney,  is  hereby 
empowered  to  seize  or  arrest  such  fugitive  from  labour,  and  to  take  him  or  her  before 
any  judge  of  the  circuit  or  district  courts  of  the  United  States,  residing  or  being  within 
the  state,  or  before  any  magistrate  of  a  county,  city  or  town  corporate,  wherein  such 
seizure  or  arrest  shall  be  made,  and  upon  proof  to  the  satisfaction  of  such  judge  or 
magistrate,  either  by  oral  testimony  or  affidavit  taken  before  and  certified  by  a  magis 
trate  of  any  such  state  or  territory,  that  the  person  so  seized  or  arrested,  doth,  under 
the  laws  of  the  state  or  territory  from  which  he  or  she  fled,  owe  service  or  labour  to 
the  person  claiming  him  or  her,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  judge  or  magistrate  to  give 
a  certificate  thereof  to  such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  which  shall  be  sufficient 
warrant  for  removing  the  said  fugitive  from  labour,  to  the  state  or  territory  from  which 
he  or  she  fled. 

"  SEC.  4.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  any  person  who  shall  knowingly  and  willingly 
obstruct  or  hinder  such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  in  so  seizing  or  arresting  such 
fugitive  from  labour,  or  shall  rescue  such  fugitive  from  such  claimant,  his  agent  or  at 
torney  when  so  arrested  pursuant  to  the  authority  herein  given  or  declared ;  or  shall 
harbor  or  conceal  such  person  after  notice  that  he  or  she  was  a  fugitive  from  labour, 
as  aforesaid,  shall,  for  either  of  the  said  offences,  forfeit  and  pay  the  sum  of  five  hun- 
.drecl  dollars.  Which  penalty  may  be  recovered  by  and  for  the  benefit  of  such  claimant, 
by  action  of  debt,  in  any  court  proper  to  try  the  same ;  saving  moreover  to  the  person 
claiming  such  labour  or  service,  his  right  of  action  for  or  on  account  of  the  said  injuries 
or  either  of  them."  —  O  Statutes  at  Large,  I.  302-305. 

10.  Abstract  of  amendatory  bill  on  fugitives.     [§  19.] 

1801,  Dec.  18.    "  The  bill  contemplates  inflicting  a  penalty  of  five  hundred  dollars  on 
any  person  harboring,  concealing,  or  employing  runaway  slaves.     Every  person  employ 
ing  a  black  person,  unless  he  had  a  certificate  with  a  county  seal  to  it,  or  signed  by  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  would  be  liable  to  the  penalty." 

1802,  Jan.   15.    A  motion  was  made  to  strike  out   the  second  section   of  the  bill, 
which  would  create  therein  and  inflict  the  penalty  for  employing  a  person  of  color  who 
has  not  a  certificate  of  his  freedoriK     Motion  not  carried.  —7  Cong.  1  Sess.,  Annals  of 
Congress,  H.  of  R.,  423.  "" . 

11.  Restoration  of  slaves  by.-Indiaii  treaties.     [§  22.] 

1814,  Aug.  9.  Treaty  with  the  Creeks.  Art.  III.  "  The  United  States  demand  that 
a  surrender  be  immediately  made  of  all  the  persons  and  property  taken  from  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  ...  to  the  respective  owners."  —  Treaties  and  Conventions . 

12.  Fugitive  slave  clause  in  the  Treaty  of  Ghent.     [§  22]. 

1814,  Dec.  24.  Art.  I.  "  All  territory,  etc.  shall  be  restored  without  delay,  and  with 
out  causing  any  destruction  or  carrying  away  any  artillery,  ...  or  any  slaves  or  other 
private  property."  —  Treaties  and  Conventions. 

13.  Amendments  proposed  to  Pindall's  bill.     [§  20.] 

1818,  Jan.  29.  "  Resolved,  That  the  said  bill  be  referred  to  the  committee  to  whom 
was  referred  the  memorial  of  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  of  Balti 
more,  with  instructions  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  so  amending  the  said  bill  as 
to  guard  more  effectually  against  infringement  of  the  rights  of  free  negroes  and  other 
persons  of  color."  Introduced  by  Mr.  Rich.  Resolution  nofaccepted.  —  House  Journal 
15  Cong.  1  Sess.,  193;  Annals  of  Congress,  15  Cong.  1  Sess.,  830. 


zn 

1793-1821.]  Bills  and  Propositions^  Of  K); 

To  change  the  bill  materially  "by  making  judges  of  the  State  in  which  the  appren 
tices,  slaves,  etc.  are  seized,  the  tribunal  to  decide  the  fact  of  slavery,  instead  of  the 
judges  of  the  States  whence  the  fugitives  have  escaped."  Introduced  by  Mr.  Sergeant. 
Amendment  not  accepted.  —  Annals  of  Congress,  15  Cong.  1  Sess.,  830. 

"Mr.  Rich  made  several  successive  attempts  to  procure  amendments  to  the  bill, 
relaxing  some  of  its  provisions,  which  were  successively  negatived." — Annals  oj 
Congress,  15  Cong.  1  Sess.,  830. 

14.  Provision  for  delivery  on  executive  requisition.     [§  20.] 

1818,  March  n.  Mr.  Daggett  moved  to  strike  out  the  following  section  of  the  bill  : 
"  Sec.  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that  whenever  the  Executive  authority  of  any  State 
in  the  Union,  or  of  either  of  the  Territories  thereof,  shall,  for  or  in  behalf  of  any  citizen 
or  inhabitant  of  such  State  or  Territory,  demand  any  fugitive  slave  of  the  Executive 
authority  of  any  State  or  Territory,  to  which  such  slave  shall  have  fled,  and  shall  more 
over  produce  a  certificate,  issued  pursuant  to  the  first  section  of  this  act,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  Executive  authority  of  the  State  or  Territory  to  which  such  fugitive  shall 
have  fled  to  cause  him  or  her  to  be  arrested  and  secured,  and  notice  of  the  arrest  to  be 
given  to  the  Executive  authority  making  such  demand,  or  to  the  agent  of  such  authority 
appointed  to  receive  the  fugitive,  and  to  cause  such  fugitive  to  be  delivered  to  the  said 
agent,  on  the  confine  or  boundary  of  the  State  or  Territory  in  which  said  arrest  shall  be, 
and  in  the  most  usual  and  direct  route  to  the  place  from  whence  the  said  fugitive  shall 
have  escaped;  and  the  reasonable  expense  of  such  arrest,  detention,  and  delivery  of 
such  fugitive  shall  be  paid  by  the  said  agent."  Amendment  determined  in  the  negative. 
—  Senate  Journal,  15  Cong.  1  Scss.,  227,  228  ;  Annals  of  Congress,  15  Cong.  1  Sess.,  259. 

15.  Proposed  limitation  to  four  years.     [§  20.] 

1818,  May  10.  Mr.  Lacock  moved  to  amend  by  adding  the  following  :  "  Sec.  -.  And 
be  it  further  enacted  that  this  law  shall  be  and  remain  in  force  for  the  term  of  four  years, 
and  no  longer."  The  Senate  being  equally  divided,  the  President  determined  the  ques 
tion  in  the  affirmative.  — Senate  Journal,  15  Cong.  1  Sess.,  228;  Annals  of  Congress,  15 
Cong.  1  Sess.,  259. 

16.  Fugitive  Slave  clause  in  the  Missouri  Compromise.     [§  21.] 

1820,  March  19.  The  Missouri  Compromise  provided  "  that  any  persons  escaping 
into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  State  or  Territory 
of  the  United  States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  per 
son  claiming  his  or  her  labor,  or  service,  as  aforesaid."  —  Annals  of  Congress,  16  Cong. 
1  Scss.,  1469,  1587. 

17.  Investigation  into  the  Pennsylvania  Act.     [§  21.] 

1820,  April  3.  Mr.  Pindall  introduced  the  following  resolution:  "  Resolved,  That 
the  Secretary  of  State  be  instructed  to  procure  and  transmit  to  this  House,  as  soon  as 
practicable,  a  copy  of  such  late  act  or  acts  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature  as  prohibit 
or  restrain  the  justices,  aldermen,  or  other  magistrates  or  officers  of  that  State  from 
interposing  in  the  apprehension  or  surrender  of  fugitive  slaves."  —  House  Journal,  16 
Cong:  1  Scss.,  371 ;  Annals  of  Congress,  16  Cong.  1  Scss.,  1717. 

Mr.  Tarr  moved  to  amend  as  follows:  "  Provided,  any  such  act  or  acts  shall  have 
been  passed."  Resolution  and  amendment  agreed  to. — House  Journal,  16  Cong.  1 
Sess.,  371;  Annals  of  Congress,  16  Cong:  1  Sess.,  1717. 

1820,  April  18.     Ordered,  That  the  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  with  the  Act  of 
the  Pennsylvania  Legislature  accompanying  it,  "  be  committed  to  the  committee  appointed 
1 8th  of  March  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  providing  by  law  for  reclaiming  per 
sons  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  and  escaping  therefrom  into  another."  — 
House  Journal,  16  Cong.  1  Scss.,  427  ;  Annals  of  Congress,  16  Cong.  1  Sess.,  1863. 

18.  Maryland  resolutions  protesting  against  Pennsylvanians.     |§  21.] 

1821,  Dec.  17.     "Mr.  Wright  laid  before  the  House  an  attested  copy  of  a  resolution 


io8  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  National  Acts.  [APP.  'B. 

passed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  complainiug  of  the  protec 
tion  offered  by  the  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  to  the  slaves  of  the  citizens  of  Maryland, 
who  abscond  and  go  into  that  State,  and  declaring  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to 
enact  such  a  law  as  will  prevent  a  continuance  of  the  evils  complained  of;  which  resolu 
tion  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary."  —  House  Journal,  17  Cong.  1  Sess., 
62  ;  Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  1  Sess.,  553. 

19.  Assumption  of  claims  on  Indians  for  fugitives.     [§22.] 

1832,  May  9.  Treaty  with  the  Seminoles,  Art.  VI.  "  The  Seminoles  being  anxious 
to  be  relieved  from  repeated  vexatious  demands  for  slaves  and  other  property  alleged 
to  have  been  stolen  and  destroyed  by  them,  so  that  they  may  remove  unembarrassed  to 
their  new  homes,  the  United  States  stipulate  to  have  the  same  property  investigated, 
and  to  liquidate  such  as  may  be  satisfactorily  established,  provided  the  amount  does 
not  exceed  seven  thousand  (7,000)  dollars."  —  Statutes  at  Large,  VII.  369. 

20.  Calhoun's  resolution  on  the  status  of  slaves  on  the  high  seas.    [§  24.] 

1840,  April  15.    "  Resolved,  That  a  ship  or  vessel  on  the  high  seas,  in  time  of  peace; 
engaged  in  a  lawful  voyage,  is,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations,  under  the  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  the  State  to  which  her  flag  belongs  ;  as  much  so  as  if  constituting  a  part 
of  its  own  domain. 

*  ''Resolved,  That  if  such  ship  or  vessel  should  be  forced  by  stress  of  weather,  or  other 
unavoidable  cause,  into  the  port,  and  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  friendly  power,  she  and 
her  cargo,  and  persons  on  board,  with  their  property,  and  all  the  rights  belonging  to 
their  personal  relations,  as  established  by  the  laws  of  the  State  to  which  they  belong, 
would  be  placed  under  the  protection  which  the  laws  of  nations  extend  to  the  unfortunate 
under  such  circumstances. 

"Resolved,  That  the  brig  Enterprise,  which  was  forced  unavoidably  by  stress  of  weather 
into  Port  Hamilton,  Bermuda  Island,  while  on  a  lawful  voyage  on  the  high  seas  from 
one  port  of  the  Union  to  another,  comes  within  the  principles  embraced  in  the  fore 
going  resolutions;  and  that  the  seizure  and  detention  of  the  negroes -on  board  by  the 
local  authority  of  the  island,  was  an  act  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  nations,  and  highly 
unjust  to  our  own  citizens,  to  whom  they  belong." —  Cong.  Globe,  26  Cong.  1  Sess.,  327. 

21.  Woodbridge  resolution  on  extradition  of  slaves.     [§  23] 

1841,  Dec.  22.    Mr.  Woodbridge  submitted  the  following  resolution,  which  was  con 
sidered,  and  by  unanimous  consent  agreed  to. 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
entering  into  some  arrangement  with  the  Government  of  Great  Britain,  reciprocal  in 
its  provisions,  for  the  arrest  of  fugitives  escaping  over  the  Northern  or  Western 
boundary  of  the  United  States,  charged  with  the  commission  of  any  crime  or  crimes, 
and  for  the  surrender  of  such  fugitives  upon  reasonable  requisition  to  the  authorities 
of  the  State  or  province  from  which  such  fugitives  may  have  fled  :  Provided,  such  ar 
rangements  do  not  comprehend  cases  of  political  offences  merely,  but  be  restricted  to 
those  which  are  in  themselves  criminal."  No  action  taken.  —  Senate  Journal,  27  Cong. 
2  Sess.,  47  ;  Cong.  Globe,  27  Cong.  2  Sess.,  48. 

22.  Significant  extracts  from  the  Prigg  decision.     [§  25.] 

1842,  "Upon  this  ground  we  have  not  the  slightest  hesitation  in  holding  that,  under 
and  in  virtue  of  the  Constitution,  the  owner  of  a  slave  is  clothed  with  entire  authority, 
in  every  state  in  the  Union,  to  seize  and  recapture  his  slave,  whenever  he  can  do  it 
without  any  breach  of  the  peace,  or  any  illegal  violence." 

"  The  clause  is  found  in  the  national  Constitution,  and  not  in  that  of  any  state.  It 
does  not  point  out  any  state  functionaries,  or  any  state  actions  to  carry  its  provisions 
into  effect.  The  states  cannot,  therefore,  be  compelled  to  enforce  them  ;  and  it  might 
well  be  deemed  an  unconstitutional  exercise  of  the  power  of  interpretation,  to  insist 
that  the  states  are  bound  to  provide  means  to  carry  into  effect  the  duties  of  the 


1821-1848.]  Prigs  Decision.     Resolutions.  109 

national  government  nowhere  delegated  or  intrusted  to  them  by  the  Constitu 
tion." 

"  If  this  be  so,  then  it  would  seem,  upon  just  principles  of  construction,  that  the 
legislation  of  Congress,  if  constitutional,  must  supersede  all  state  legislation  upon  the 
same  subject ;  and  by  necessary  implication  prohibit  it." 

"  As  to  the  authority  so  conferred  upon  state  magistrates,  while  a  difference  of 
opinion  has  existed,  and  may  exist  still  on  the  point,  in  different  states,  whether  state 
magistrates  are  bound  to  act  under  it ;  none  is  entertained  by  this  Court  that  state  magis 
trates  may,  if  they  choose,  exercise  that  authority,  unless  prohibited  by  state  legisla 
tion." — 16  Peters,  Justice  Story  s  Opinion,  608. 

23.  Giddings's  resolutions  on  the  status  of  slaves  on  the  high  seas.   [§  24.] 
1842,  March  21.   "  Resolved,  That  when  a  ship  belonging  to  the  citizens  of  any  State 

of  this  Union  leaves  the  waters  and  territory  of  such  State,  and  enters  upon  the  high 
seas,  the  persons  on  board  cease  to  be  subject  to  the  slave  laws  of  such  State,  and 
thenceforth  are  governed  in  their  relations  to  each  other  by,  and  are  amenable  only 
to,  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 

"Resolved,  That  when  the  brig  Creole,  on  her  late  voyage  for  New  Orleans,  left  the 
territorial  jurisdiction  of  Virginia,  the  slave  laws  of  that  State  ceased  to  have  juris 
diction  over  the  persons  on  board  said  brig,  and  such  persons  became  amenable  only 
to  the  law  of  the  United  States. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  persons  on  board  the  said  ship,  in  reserving  their  natural  rights 
of  personal  liberty,  violated  no  law  of  the  United  States,  incurred  no  legal  penalty,  and 
are  justly  liable  to  no  punishment."  —  Cong.  Globe,  27  Cong.  2  Sess.,  324. 

24.  Beiitoii's  resolution  on  slaves  escaping  to  Canada.     [§  23.] 
1844,  Jan.  29.    Mr.  Benton  presented  the  following  resolution  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  President  be  requested  to  communicate  to  the  Senate  the  infor 
mation,  if  any,  which  may  be  in  the  Department  of  State,  in  relation  to  slaves  com 
mitting  crimes  and  escaping  from  the  United  States  to  the  British  dominions  since  the 
ratification  of  the  treaty  of  1842,  and  the  refusal  of  the  British  authorities  to  give 
them  up.  Also,  that  he  communicate  to  the  Senate  the  information,  if  any  such  is 
possessed  by  him,  of  the  construction  which  the  British  government  puts  upon  the  said 
article  in  relation  to  slaves  committing  crimes  in  the  United  States  and  taking  refuge 
in  the  British  dominions."  —  Congressional  Record,  2S  Cong.  1  Sess.,  206. 

25.  Giddings's  resolution  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  ill  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia.     [§  28.] 

1848,  Jan.  17.  Mr.  Giddings  described  the  seizure  of  a  colored  man  employed  as 
waiter  in  a  colored  boarding-house  in  Washington.  He  then  offered  the  following 
resolution  :  — 

"'Resolved,  That  a  select  committee  of  five  members  be  appointed  to  inquire  into  and 
report  upon  facts  aforesaid  ;  also  as  to  the  propriety  of  repealing  such  acts  of  Congress 
as  sustain  or  authorize  the  slave  trade  in  this  District,  or  to  remove  the  seat  of  the  Gov 
ernment  to  some  free  State."  Resolution  laid  on  the  table.  —  House  Journal,  30  Cong. 
1  Sess.,  250;  Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.  1  Sess.,  179. 

26.  Hall's  repeal  resolution  for  the  District  of  Columbia.     [§  28.] 

1848,  Feb.  28.  Mr.  Nathan  K.  Hall  offered  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions, 
which  were  read,  and,  debate  arising  thereon,  it  was  laid  over  under  the  rule,  viz. :  — 

"  Preamble Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be,  and  they  are  here 
by,  directed  to  report  to  this  House  with  all  convenient  speed  a  bill  repealing  all  laws  of 
Congress,  and  abrogating,  so  far  as  they  are  operative  or  in  force  in  the  District  of  Co 
lumbia  all  the  laws  in  the  State  of  Maryland  which  authorize  or  require  the  < 
officers,  or  magistrates  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  said  District,  within  the  I 
Columbia  to  issue  process  for  arrest,  or  commit  to  the  jail  of  the  said  District  any  run- 


1 10  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  National  Acts.  [Apr.  B. 

away  or  other  slave  or  fugitive  from  service,"  etc.     Resolution  laid  over  under  the  rule. 
—  House  Journal,  30  Cong.  1  Sess.,  450,  453  ;  Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.  1  Sess.,  390. 

27.  Giddings's  resolution  inquiring  into  the  condition  of  the  District  of 
Columbia  jail.     [§  28.] 

1848,  April  18.  Mr.  Giddings  introduced  the  following  resolution  :  — 
"  Whereas,  more  than  eighty  men,  women,  and  children,  are  said  to  be  now  confined  in 
the  prison  of  the  District  of  Columbia  without  being  charged  with  crime  or  any  impro 
priety  other  than  an  attempt  to  enjoy  that  liberty  for  which  our  fathers  encountered 
toil,  suffering,  and  death  itself,  and  for  which  the  people  of  many  European  governments 
are  now  struggling  ;  And  whereas  said  prison  was  erected,  and  is  now  sustained,  by 
funds  contributed  by  the  people  of  the  free  as  well  as  of  the  slave  States,  and  is  under 
the  control  of  the  laws  and  officers  of  the  United  States: 

"  And  whereas,  such  practice  is  derogatory  to  our  national  character,  incompatible 
with  the  duty  of  a  civilized  and  Christian  people,  and  unworthy  of  being  sustained  by 
an  American  Congress  :  Therefore,  Be  it  resolved.  That  a  select  committee  of  five 
members  of  this  body  be  appointed  to  inquire  into  and  report  to  this  House  by  what 
authority  said  prison  is  used  for  the  purpose  of  confining  persons  who  have  attempted 
to  escape  from  slavery,  with  leave  to  report  what  legislation  is  proper  in  regard  to  said 
practice.  Resolved,  further,  that  said  committee  be  authorized  to  send  for  persons  and 
papers."  Objections  being  made,  the  motion  was  not  received. —  Cong.  Glebe,  SO  Cong. 
1  Sess.,  641. 

28.  Giddings's  resolution  on  the  jail  in  the  District  of  Columbia.    [§  28.] 

1848,  April  21.    Mr.  Giddings  visited  the  jail  in  the  District  of  Columbia  for  the  pur 
pose  of  interviewing  the  persons  confined  there  on  charge  of  carrying  away  slaves  from 
this  District.     He  was  then  mobbed  and  his  life  endangered. 

"  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  members  be  appointed  to  investigate  and  report 
to  this  House  respecting  the  points  alluded  to  in  the  above  statement,  and  that  said 
committee  be  authorized  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to  sit  during  the  session 
of  the  House." —  Cong.  Globe,  30th  Cong.  1  Sess.,  664. 

29.  Meade's  resolution  on  more  effectual  enforcement  of  the  constitu 
tional  article  on  fugitive  slaves.     [§27.] 

1849,  Jan.  8.    Mr.  Meade  moved  that  the  rules  be  suspended  to  enable  him  to  offer 
the  following  resolution  :  — 

"  Preamble.  Whereas  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  enact  all 
laws  necessary  to  enforce  such  provisions  of  the  Constitution  as  were  intended  to  pro 
tect  the  citizens  of  the  several  States  in  their  rights  of  property,  and  past  experience 
has  proved  that  laws  should  be  passed  by  Congress  to  enforce  the  second  section  of  the 
fourth  article  of  the  Constitution,  which  requires  that  persons  held  to  labor  in  one  State, 
escaping  into  another,  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  labor 
may  be  due;  therefore,  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  is  hereby  in 
structed  to  report  a  bill  to  this  House,  providing  effectually  for  the  apprehension  and 
delivery  of  fugitives  from  labor  who  have  escaped,  or  may  hereafter  escape,  from  one 
State  into  another."  Rules  not  suspended.  —  House  Journal,  30  Cong.  2  Sess.,  213  ; 
Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.  2  Sess.,  iSS. 

30.  Legislative  history  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.    [Jan.  3  to  Sept.  18,  §  29.] 

1850,  Jan.  3.    Mr.  Mason  of  Virginia  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  introduce  a  bill.  — 
Cong.  Globe,  99. 

Jan.  4  Senate  bill  No.  23  introduced  by  Mason,  read  twice,  ordered  printed,  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary.  — Senate  Jottrnal,  54  ;  Globe,  103. 

Jan.  16.  Bill  reported  favorably  by  Butler  from  the  committee,  ordered  printed,  and 
made  a  special  order  for  Jan.  23.  — Senate  Journal,  88;  Globe,  171  ;  Senate  Reports,  I. 
No.  12. 


1848-1850.]  Resolutions.     Bill  of  1860.  Ill 

Jan.  22.  Debate  begun.  Mason  offered  an  amendment  which  made  the  fine  for  any 
obstruction  of  the  workings  of  the  act  one  thousand  dollars,  and  refused  to  allow  the 
testimony  of  a  fugitive.  —  Globe,  210. 

Jan.  23,  24.  Bill  taken  up  and  debated.  —  Senate  Journal,  104,110;  Globe •,  220,228; 
Globe  App.  79,  83. 

Jan  28.  Seward  presented  an  amendment,  which  allowed  the  right  of  trial  by  jury, 
and  punished  judges  who  should  disallow  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  —  Senate  Journal, 
117;  Globe,  233-237. 

Jan.  29.  Clay  introduced,  as  a  part  of  his  compromise  resolutions,  a  declaration  that 
a  more  effective  fugitive  slave  act  should  be  passed.  — Senate  Journal,  118;  Globe,  247. 

Jan.  31.  Mason  offered  a  substitute  for  the  bill  already  before  the  Senate.  It  was 
laid  on  the  table,  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  —  Globe,  270. 

June  3.    Webster  brought  in  an  amendatory  bill.  —  Senate  Journal,  370;  Globe,  iiir. 

Aug.  15.  The  debate  was  again  opened,  and  made  the  special  order  for  Aug.  19  — 
Senate  Journal,  560;  Globe,  1588. 

Aug.  19.  Mason  offered  as  an  amendment  a  substitute  for  the  bill  already  before  the 
Senate. — Senate  Journal,  564;  Globe,  1605;  Globe  App.,  1582. 

Dayton  brought  in  an  amendment  which  gave  trial  by  jury.  This  was  rejected.  - 
Senate  Journal,  564  ;  Globe  App.,  564. 

Chase  offered  one  of  the  same  character,  which  was  also  rejected.  —  Globe  App  ,  1589. 

Winthrop  brought  in  an  amendment  granting  the  protection  of  the  habeas  corpus. 
This  was  rejected.  —  Senate  Journal,  565  ;  Globe  App,  1589. 

Aug.  20.  Mason's  substitute  was  agreed  to.  —  Senate  Journal,  568;  Globe,  1616; 
Globe  App.,  1591. 

An  amendment  to  Mason's  substitute  was  offered  by  Mr.  Pratt.  This  gave  the  owner 
the  right  of  suit  against  the  United  States  for  the  value  of  the  slave  if  not  delivered. 
This  was  afterward  amended  by  Mason  and  Pratt,  and  rejected,  August  23.  —  Senate 
Journal,  570-573;  Globe,  1636;  Globe  App.,  1609. 

Aug  22.  Underwood  offered  an  amendment  as  a  substitute,  and  Davis  presented  an 
amendment  to  Mason's  bill  striking  out  the  clause  providing  compensation  for  escaped 
slaves.  This  was  rejected.  —  Senate  Journal,  573,  580;  Globe,  1636;  Globe  App.,  1609, 

1619. 

Aug.   23.   Amendments  were  offered  to  Underwood's  amendment  by  Chase 
Badger.     Both  were  rejected.  —  Senate  Journal,  575~580  J  Globe  APP->  l6l9'  l623»  l625- 

Another  slight  amendment  by  Chase  was  also  rejected.  —  Globe  App.,  1624. 

Mason  amended  his  bill  by  making  the  Marshal  liable  for  the  value  of  a  slave  who 
has  escaped  from  his  custody.  —  Senate  Journal,  576  ;  Globe  App.,  1625. 

An  attempt  to  amend  the  bill  by  striking  out  the  compensation  for  escaped  s 
and  other  slight  changes,  was  made  by  Davis,  and  the  amendment  was  accepted. - 
Senate  Journal,  580  ;   Globe  App.,  1630. 

Bill  as  amended  was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  the  third  reading.  - 
Journal,  581 ;  Globe,  1647  ;  Globe  App.,  1630. 

Aug.  26.    After  changing  the  title  to  make  it  an  act  supplementary  tc 
the  bill  was  passed,  and  sent  to  the  House.  —Senate  Journal,  583  ;  Globe,  166 

Sept   12.    In  the  House  it  was  read  a  first  and  second  time  by  title. 
Pennsylvania  moved  to  put  it  on  its  passage,  and  moved  the  previous  que 
he  refused  to  withdraw,  and  which  was  carried  —  House  Journal,  1289,  1448- 

Stevens  moved  to  lay  it  on  the  table,  but   the  motion  was  lost,  and 
ordered  to  a  third  reading.  —  House  Journal,  1449. 

The  bill  was  passed,  109  to  75.  —  House  Journal,  MS'-MSS?  Globf>  l8°7- 

It  was  returned  to  the  Senate.  —  Senate  Journal,  627 ;  Globe,  1810. 
Sept   14.   The  bill  was  signed  by  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate.  —Set. 
629;  Globe,  1815. 


H2  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  National  Acts.  [APP.  B. 

Bill  signed  by  the  Speaker  of  the  House. —  House  Journal,  1457  ;  Globe,  1812. 
Sept.  16.    Bill  sent  to  the  President,  and  signed  by  him  Sept.   18.  —  House  Journal, 
1472,  1497  ;  Senate  Journal,  638,  648. 

31.  Second  Fugitive  Slave  Act.     [§§  29,  30.] 

1850,  Sept.  18.  "An  Act  to  amend,  and  supplementary  to,  the  Act  entitled  'An  Act 
respecting  Fugitives  from  Justice,  and  Persons  escaping  from  the  Service  of  their 
Masters?  approved  Febmary  twelfth,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  ninety-three. 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  persons  who  have  been,  or  may  hereafter  be,  appointed 
commissioners,  in  virtue  of  any  act  of  Congress,  by  the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United 
States,  and  who,  in  consequence  of  such  appointment,  are  authorized  to  exercise  the 
powers  that  any  justice  of  the  peace,  or  other  magistrate  of  any  of  the  United  States, 
may  exercise  in  respect  to  offenders  for  any  crime  or  offence  against  the  United  States, 
by  arresting,  imprisoning,  or  bailing  the  same  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  thirty-third 
section  of  the  act  of  the  twenty-fourth  of  September  seventeen  hundred  and  eighty- 
nine,  entitled  'An  Act  to  establish  the  judicial  courts  of  the  United  States,'  shall  be, 
and  are  hereby,  authorized  and  required  to  exercise  and  discharge  all  the  powers  and 
duties  conferred  by  this  act. 

"  SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Superior  Court  of  each  organized  Ter 
ritory  of  the  United  States  shall  have  the  same  power  to  appoint  commissioners  to  take 
acknowledgments  of  bail  and  affidavits,  and  to  take  depositions  of  witnesses  in  civil 
causes,  which  is  now  possessed  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States;  and  all  com 
missioners  who  shall  hereafter  be  appointed  for  such  purposes  by  the  Superior  Court 
of  any  organized  Territory  of  the  United  States,  shall  possess  all  the  powers,  and  exer 
cise  all  the  duties,  conferred  by  law  upon  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Circuit 
Courts  of  the  United  States  for  similar  purposes,  and  shall  moreover  exercise  and  dis 
charge  all  the  powers  and  duties  conferred  by  this  act. 

"  SEC.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  Superior  Courts  of  each  organized  Territory  of  the  United  States,  shall  from 
time  to  time  enlarge  the  number  of  commissioners,  with  a  view  to  afford  reasonable 
facilities  to  reclaim  fugitives  from  labor,  and  to  the  prompt  discharge  of  the  duties 
imposed  by  this  act. 

"  SEC.  4.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  commissioners  above  named  shall  have 
concurrent  jurisdiction  with  the  judges  of  the  Circuit  and  District  Courts  of  the  United 
States,  in  their  respective  circuits  and  districts  within  the  several  States,  and  the  judges 
of  the  Superior  Courts  of  the  Territories,  severally  and  collectively,  in  term-time  and 
vacation;  and  shall  grant  certificates  to  such  claimants,  upon  satisfactory  proof  being 
made,  with  authority  to  take  and  remove  such  fugitives  from  service  or  labor,  under  the 
restrictions  herein  contained,  to  the  State  or  Territory  from  which  such  persons  may 
have  escaped  or  fled. 

"  SEC.  5.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  all  marshals  and 
deputy  marshals  to  obey  and  execute  all  warrants  and  precepts  issued  under  the  pro 
visions  of  this  act,  when  to  them  directed;  and  should  any  marshal  or  deputy  marshal 
refuse  to  receive  such  warrant,  or  other  process,  when  tendered,  or  to  use  all  proper 
means  diligently  to  execute  the  same,  he  shall,  on  conviction  thereof,  be  fined  in  the 
sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  to  the  use  of  such  claimant,  on  the  motion  of  such  claim 
ant  bv  the  Circuit  or  District  Court  for  the  district  of  such  marshal ;  and  after  arrest 
of  such  fugitive,  by  such  marshal  or  his  deputy,  or  whilst  at  any  time  in  his  custody 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  should  such  fugitive  escape,  whether  with  or  without 
the  assent  of  such  marshal  or  his  deputy,  such  marshal  shall  be  liable,  on  his  official 
bond,  to  be  prosecuted  for  the  benefit  of  such  claimant,  for  the  full  value  of  the  service 
or  labor  of  said  fugitive  in  the  State,  Territory,  or  District  whence  he  escaped:  and  the 


l85°-l  Second  Fugitive  Slave  Act.  113 

better  to  enable  the  said  commissioners,  when  thus  appointed,  to  execute  their  duties 
faithfully  and  efficiently,  in  conformity  with  the  requirements  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  of  this  act,  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered,  within  their 
counties  respectively,  to  appoint,  in  writing  under  their  hands,  any  one  or  more  suit 
able  persons,  from  time  to  time,  to  execute  all  such  warrants  and  other  process  as  may 
be  issued  by  them  in  the  lawful  performance  of  their  respective  duties  ;  with  authority 
to  such  commissioners,  or  the  persons  to  be  appointed  by  them,  to  execute  process  as 
aforesaid,  to  summon  and  call  to  their  aid  the  bystanders,  or  posse  comitatus  of  the 
proper  county,  when  necessary  to  insure  a  faithful  observance  of  the  clause  of  the  Con 
stitution  referred  to,  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  this  act;  and  all  good  citizens 
are  hereby  commanded  to  aid  and  assist  in  the  prompt  and  efficient  execution  of  this 
law,  whenever  their  services  may  be  required,  as  aforesaid,  for  that  purpose  ;  and  said 
warrants  shall  run,  and  be  executed  by  said  officers,  anywhere  in  the  State  within  which 
they  are  issued. 

"  SEC.  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  when  a  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in 
any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  has  heretofore  or  shall  hereafter  escape  into 
another  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  the  person  or  persons  to  whom  such 
service  or  labor  may  be  due,  or  his,  her,  or  their  agent  or  attorney,  duly  authorized,  by 
power  of  attorney,  in  writing,  acknowledged  and  certified  under  the  seal  of  some  legal 
officer  or  court  of  the  State  or  Territory  in  which  the  same  maybe  executed,  may  pursue 
and  reclaim  such  fugitive  person,  either  by  procuring  a  warrant  from  some  one  of  the 
courts-,  judges,  or  commissioners  aforesaid,  of  the  proper  circuit,  district,  or  county, 
for  the  apprehension  of  such  fugitive  from  service  or  labor,  or  by  seizing  and  arresting 
such  fugitive,  where  the  same  can  be  done  without  process,  and  by  taking,  or  causing 
such  person  to  he  taken,  forthwith  before  such  court,  judge,  or  commissioner,  whose 
duty  it  shall  be  to  hear  and  determine  the  case  of  such  claimant  in  a  summary  manner ; 
and  upon  satisfactory  proof  being  made,  by  deposition  or  affidavit,  in  writing,  to  be 
taken  and  certified  by  such  court,  judge,  or  commissioner,  or  by  other  satisfactory  testi 
mony,  duly  taken  and  certified  by  some  court,  magistrate,  justice  of  the  peace,  or  other 
legal  officer  authorized  to  administer  an  oath  and  take  depositions  under  the  laws  of 
the  State  or  Territory  from  which  such  person  owing  service  or  labor  may  have  escaped, 
with  a  certificate  of  such  magistracy  or  other  authority,  as  aforesaid,  with  the  seal  of  the 
proper  court  or  officer  thereto  attached,  which  seal  shall  be  sufficient  to  establish  the 
competency  of  the  proof,  and  with  proof,  also  by  affidavit,  of  the  identity  of  the  person 
whose  service  or  labor  is  claimed  to  be  due  as  aforesaid,  that  the  person  so  arrested 
does  in  fact  owe  service  or  labor  to  the  person  or  persons  claiming  him  or  her,  in  the 
State  or  Territory  from  which  such  fugitive  may  have  escaped  as  aforesaid,  and  that  said 
person  escaped,  to  make  out  and  deliver  to  such  claimant,  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney, 
a  certificate  setting  forth  the  substantial  facts  as  to  the  service  or  labor  due  from  such 
fugitive  to  the  claimant,  and  of  his  or  her  escape  from  the  State  or  Territory  in  which 
such  service  or  labor  was  due,  to  the  State  or  Territory  in  which  he  or  she  was  arrested, 
with  authority  to  such  claimant,  or  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney,  to  use  such  reasonable 
force  and  restraint  as  may  be  necessary,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  to  take 
and  remove  such  fugitive  person  back  to  the  State  or  Territory  whence  he  or  she  may 
have  escaped  as  aforesaid.  In  no  trial  or  hearing  under  this  act  shall  the  testimony  of 
such  alleged  fugitive  be  admitted  in  evidence  ;  and  the  certificates  in  this  and  the  first 
[fourth]  section  mentioned,  shall  be  conclusive  of  the  right  of  the  person  or  persons  in 
whose  favor  granted,  to  remove  such  fugitive  to  the  State  or  Territory  from  which  he 
escaped,  and  shall  prevent  all  molestation  of  such  person  or  persons  by  any  process 
issued  by  any  court,  judge,  magistrate,  or  other  person  whomsoever. 

"  SEC.  7.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  any  person  who  shall  knowingly  and  will 
ingly  obstruct,  hinder,  or  prevent  such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  or  any  person  or 

8 


H4  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  National  Acts.  [APP.  E. 

persons  lawfully  assisting  him,  her,  or  them,  from  arresting  such  a  fugitive  from  service 
or  labor,  either  with  or  without  process  as  aforesaid,  or  shall  rescue,  or  attempt  to 
rescue,  such  fugitive  from  service  or  labor,  from  the  custody  of  such  claimant,  his  or 
her  agent  or  attorney,  or  other  person  or  persons  lawfully  assisting  as  aforesaid,  when 
so  arrested,  pursuant  to  the  authority  herein  given  and  declared ;  or  shall  aid,  abet,  or 
assist  such  person  so  owing  service  or  labor  as  aforesaid,  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
escape  from  such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  or  other  person  or  persons  legally 
authorized  as  aforesaid  ;  or  shall  harbor  or  conceal  such  fugitive,  so  as  to  prevent  the 
discovery  and  arrest  of  such  person,  after  notice  or  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  such 
person  was  a  fugitive  from  service  or  labor  as  aforesaid,  shall,  for  either  of  said  offences, 
be  subject  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars,  and  imprisonment  not  exceed 
ing  six  months,  by  indictment  and  conviction  before  the  District  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  district  in  which  such  offence  may  have  been  committed,  or  before  the 
proper  court  of  criminal  jurisdiction,  if  committed  within  any  one  of  the  organized 
Territories  of  the  United  States  ;  and  shall  moreover  forfeit  and  pay,  by  way  of  civil 
damages  to  the  party  injured  by  such  illegal  conduct,  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars, 
for  each  fugitive  so  lost  as  aforesaid,  to  be  recovered  by  action  of  debt,  in  any  of  the 
District  ov  Territorial  Courts  aforesaid,  within  whose  jurisdiction  the  said  offence  may 
have  been  committed. 

"  SEC.  8.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  marshals,  their  deputies,  and  the  clerks 
of  the  said  District  and  Territorial  Courts,  shall  be  paid.-  for  their  services,  the  like  fees 
as  may  be  allowed  to  them  for  similar  services  in  other  cases;  and  where  such  services 
are  rendered  exclusively  in  the  arrest,  custody,  and  delivery  of  the  fugitive  to  the 
claimant,  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney,  or  where  such  supposed  fugitive  may  be  dis 
charged  out  of  custody  for  the  want  of  sufficient  proof  as  aforesaid,  then  such  fees  are 
to  be  paid  in  the  whole  by  such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney;  and  in  all  cases  where 
the  proceedings  are  before  a  commissioner,  he  shall  be  entitled  to  a  fee  of  ten  dollars 
in  full  for  his  services  in  each  case,  upon  the  delivery  of  the  said  certificate  to  the 
claimant,  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney;  or  a  fee  of  five  dollars  in  cases  where  the  proof 
shall  not,  in  the  opinion  of  such  commissioner,  warrant  such  certificate  and  delivery, 
inclusive  of  all  services  incident  to  such  arrest  and  examination,  to  be  paid,  in  either 
case,  by  the  claimant,  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney.  The  person  or  persons  authorized 
to  execute  the  process  to  be  issued  by  such  commissioners  for  the  arrest  and  detention 
of  fugitives  from  service  or  labor  as  aforesaid,  shall  also  be  entitled  to  a  fee  of  five 
dollars  each  for  each  person  he  or  they  may  arrest  and  take  before  any  such  commis 
sioner  as  aforesaid,  at  the  instance  and  request  of  such  claimant,  with  such  other  fees 
as  may  be  deemed  reasonable  by  such  commissioner  for  such  other  additional  services 
as  maybe  necessarily  performed  by  him  or  them  ;  such  as  attending  at  the  examination, 
keeping  the  fugitive  in  custody,  and  providing  him  with  food  and  lodging  during  his 
detention,  and  until  the  final  determination  of  such  commissioner  ;  and,  in  general,  for 
performing  such  other  duties  as  may  be  required  by  such  claimant,  his  or  her  attornev 
or  agent,  or  commissioner  in  the  premises,  such  fees  to  be  made  up  in  conformity  with 
the  fees  usually  charged  by  the  officers  of  the  courts  of  justice  within  the  proper  dis 
trict  or  county,  as  near  as  may  be  practicable,  and  paid  by  such  claimants,  their  agents 
or  attorneys,  whether  such  supposed  fugitives  from  service  or  labor  be  ordered  to  be 
delivered  to  such  claimants  by  the  final  determination  of  such  commissioners  or  not. 

"  SEC.  9.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  upon  affidavit  made  by  the  claimant  of 
such  fugitive,  his  agent  or  attorney,  after  such  certificate  has  been  issued,  that  he  has 
reason  to  apprehend  that  such  fugitive  will  be  rescued  by  force  from  his  or  their  pos 
session  before  he  can  be  taken  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State  in  which  the  arrest  is 
made,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  officer  making  the  arrest  to  retain  such  fugitive  in  his 
custody,  and  to  remove  him  to  the  State  whence  he  fled,  and  there  to  deliver  him  to 


1850-1851.]  Act  of  I860.     Resolutions.  115 

said  claimant,  his  agent,  or  attorney.  And  to  this  end,  the  officer  aforesaid  is  hereby 
authorized  and  required  to  employ  so  many  persons  as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  over 
come  such  force,  and  to  retain  them  in  his  service  so  long  as  circumstances  may  require. 
The  said  officer  and  his  assistants,  while  so  employed,  to  receive  the  same  compensa 
tion,  and  to  be  allowed  the  same  expenses,  as  are  now  allowed  by  law  for  transpor 
tation  of  criminals,  to  be  certified  by  the  judge  of  the  district  within  which  the  arrest 
is  made,  and  paid  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  United  States. 

"  SEC.  10.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  when  any  person  held  to  service  or  labor 
in  any  State  or  Territory,  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  shall  escape  therefrom,  the 
,  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  shall  be  due,  his,  her,  or  their  agent  or  attorney, 
may  apply  to  any  court  of  record  therein,  or  judge  thereof  in  vacation,  and  make  satis 
factory  proof  to  such  court,  or  judge  in  vacation,  of  the  escape  aforesaid,  and  that  the 
person  escaping  owed  service  or  labor"to  such  party.  Whereupon  the  court  shall  cause 
a  record  to  be  made  of  the  matters  so  proved,  and  also  a  general  description  of  the 
person  so  escaping,  with  such  convenient  certainty  as  may  be ;  and  a  transcript  of  such 
record,  authenticated  by  the  attestation  of  the  clerk  and  of  the  seal  of  the  said  court, 
being  produced  in  any  other  State,  Territory,  or  district  in  which  the  person  so  escap 
ing  may  be  found,  and  being  exhibited  -to  any  judge,  commissioner,  or  other  officer 
authorized  by  the  law  of  the  United  States  to  cause  persons  escaping  from  service  or 
labor  to  be  delivered  up,  shall  be  held  and  taken  to  be  full  and  conclusive  evidence  of 
the  fact  of  escape,  and  that  the  service  or  labor  of  the  person  escaping  is  due  to  the 
party  in  such  record  mentioned.  And  upon  the  production  by  the  said  party  of  other  and 
further  evidence  if  necessary,  either  oral  or  by  affidavit,  in  addition  to  what  is  contained 
jn  the  said  record  of  the  identity  of  the  person  escaping,  he  or  she  shall  be  delivered 
up  to  the  claimant.  And  the  said  court,  commissioner,  judge,  or  other  person  author 
ized  by  this  act  to  grant  certificates  to  claimants  of  fugitives,  shall,  upon  the  production 
of  the  record  and  other  evidences  aforesaid,  grant  to  such  claimant  a  certificate  of  his 
right  to  take  any  such  person  identified  and  proved  to  be  owing  service  or  labor  as 
aforesaid,  which  certificate  shall  authorize  such  claimant  to  seize  or  arrest  and  trans 
port  such  person  to  the  State  or  Territory  from  which  he  escaped :  Provided,  That 
nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  as  requiring  the  production  of  a  transcript 
of  such  record  as  evidence  as  aforesaid.  But  in  its  absence  the  claim  shall  be  heard 
and  determined  upon  other  satisfactory  proofs,  competent  in  law. 
"Approved,  September  18,  1850."  —  Statutes  at  Large,  ix.  462-465. 

32.  McLanahan's  resolution  against  repeal  of  the  law  of  1850. 

1851,  Jan.  13.  Mr.  McLanahan  moved  that  the  rules  be  suspended  to  enable  him 
to  introduce  the  following  resolution,  viz. .  "  Resolved,  That  it  would  be  inexpedient  and 
improper  to  repeal  the  law  passed  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  entitled  'An  act  to 
amend,  and  supplementary  to,  the  act  entitled  An  act  respecting  fugitives  from  justice 
and  persons  escaping  from  the  service  of  their  masters/  approved  Feb.  12, 1793."  House 
refused  to  suspend  the  rules.  —  House  Journal,  31  Cong.  2  Sess.,  139;  Cong.  Globe, SI  Cong. 
2  Sess.,  226. 

33.  Clay's  resolution  on  the  Shadrach  case,  Boston.     [§  51.] 

1851,  Feb.  17.  Mr.  Clay  submitted  the  following  resolution,  which  lies  over  one  day: 
"  Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  lay  before  the 
Senate,  if  not  incompatible  with  the  public  interest,  any  information  he  may  possess  in 
regard  to  an  alleged  recent  case  of  a  forcible  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  in  the  city  of  Boston,  and  to  communicate  to  the  Senate  under  the 
above  condition  what  means  he  has  adopted  to  meet  the  occurrence,  and  whether,  in 
his  opinion,  any  additional  legislation  is  necessary  to  meet  the  exigency  of  the  case,  and 
to  more  sigorously  execute  existing  laws."  Resolution  adopted. — Senate  Journal,  SI 
Cong.  2  Sess.,  187  ;  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.  2  Sess.,  580. 


n6  Fugitive  Slaves :  —  National  Acts.  {APP.  B. 

34.  Bright's  bill  explanatory  of  law  of  1850. 

1851,  Feb.  10.    Mr.  Bright   obtained  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  (458)  explanatory  of 
the  act  approved  i8th  September  in  the  year  1850,  entitled,  "An  Act  to  amend,  and 
supplemental  to,  the  act  entitled,  '  An  Act  respecting  fugitives  from  justice  and  persons 
escaping  from  the  service  of  their  masters,'"  approved  Feb.  12,  1793,  which  was  read 
twice,  and  referred  to  the    Committee  on  the  Judiciary. — Senate  Journal,  32  Cong. 
1  Sess.,   162. 

The  bill  is  in  the  following  terms  :  "  Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  that  all  action  and  causes 
of  action,  and  all  proceedings  instituted  and  to  be  instituted,  for  any  violation  of  the 
provisions  of  said  act  respecting  fugitives  from  justice  and  persons  escaping  from  the 
service  of  their  masters,  approved  the  I2th  February,  1793,  may  be  instituted  and 
prosecuted  to  final  judgment  and  execution  as  if  the  said  act  of  Sept.  18,  1850,  had 
not  been  passed."  —  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.  2  Sess.,  492. 

35.  Fitch's  resolution  affirming  the  Compromise. 

1852,  March  i.    Mr.  Fitch  offered  the  following  resolution  :  "Resolved,  That  we  rec 
ognize  the  binding  efficacy  of  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  and  believe  it  to 
be  the  intention  of  the  people  generally,  as  we  hereby  declare  it  to  be  ours  individually, 
to  abide  such  compromises,  and  to  sustain  the  laws  necessary  to  carry  out  the  pro 
visions  for  the  delivery  of  fugitive  slaves  ordered,  and  that  we  deprecate  all  further 
agitation  of  questions  growing  out  of  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  embraced  in 
the  acts  of  the  last  Congress  known  as  the  Compromise."  —  House  Journal,  82  Cong. 
1  Sess.,  408  ;   Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.  1  Sess.,  659. 

36.  Jackson's  resolution  affirming  the  Compromise. 

1852,  March  22.  "Resolved,  That  we  recognize  the  binding  efficacy  of  the  compro 
mises  of  the  Constitution,  and  believe  it  to  be  the  intention  of  the  people  generally,  as 
we  hereby  declare  it  to  be  ours  individually,  to  abide  such  compromises,  and  to  sustain 
the  laws  necessary  to  carry  them  out,  —  the  provision  for  the  delivery  of  fugitive  slaves, 
and  the  act  of  the  last  Congress  for  that  purpose  included,  —  and  that  we  deprecate  all 
further  agitation  of  questions  growing  out  of  that  provision,  of  the  questions  embraced 
in  the  acts  of  the  last  Congress  known  as  the  Compromise,  and  of  questions  generally 
connected  with  the  institution  of  slavery  as  unnecessary,  useless,  and  dangerous." 
Resolution,  as  amended  by  Mr.  Hillyer  below,  agreed  to.  —  House  Journal,  32  Cong. 
1  Sess.,  550  ;  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.  1  Sess.,  825. 

37.  Hillyer's  finality  resolution. 

1852,  Aprils-  Mr-  Hillyer  moved  the  following  resolution:  "Resolved,  That  the 
series  of  acts  passed  during  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-first  Congress,  known  as 
the  compromise,  are  recorded  as  a  final  adjustment,  and  a  permanent  settlement  of  the 
questions  there  embraced,  and  should  be  maintained  and  executed  as  such."  Resolu 
tion  agreed  to,  April  6,  1852.  —  House  Journal,  32  Cong.  1  Sess.,  548;  Cong.  Globe,  32 
Cong.  1  Sess.,  979. 

38.  Chase's  resolution  of  inquiry  into  payments  under  act  of  1850. 

1852,  June  3.  Mr.  Chase  submitted  the  following  resolution:  "Resolved,  That  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  be  directed  to  communicate  to  the  Senate  statements,  showing 
in  detail  the  expenses  incurred  and  claims  made  under  the  Act  to  amend  and  supple 
mental  to  the  '  Act  respecting  fugitives  from  justice  and  persons  escaping  from  the 
service  of  their  masters/  distinguishing  the  expenses  incurred  and  claimed  by  reason 
of  prosecutions  for  treasons,  alleged  to  have  been  committed  in  resistance  of  said  act 
from  expenses  incurred  and  claimed  by  reason  of  other  prosecutions  for  offending 
against  said  act,  and  for  proceedings  before  and  under  orders  made  by  committee." 
No  action  taken. — Senate  Journal,  32  Cong.  1  Sess.,  450;  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.  1  Sess., 


APPENDIX   C. 

NATIONAL  ACTS  AND  PROPOSITIONS  RELATING    TO 
FUGITIVE    SLAVES. 

(1860-1864.) 

THIS  Appendix  is  intended  to  contain  references  to  all  the  resolutions,  bills,  and  acts 
of  Congress,  relative  to  fugitives,  from  the  beginning  of  the  critical  session  of  1860-61 
to  the  repeal  of  the  acts  in  1864.  The  resolutions  for  amendments  to  the  Constitu 
tion  have  been  collected  by  Mr.  Herman  V.  Ames  of  the  Harvard  Graduate  School, 
who  has  kindly  selected  out  of  the  numerous  amendments  proposed  in  the  last  session 
of  the  Thirty-Sixth  Congress  those  bearing  upon  this  subject. 

The  single  star  (*)  indicates  a  measure  which  passed  one  House :  a  double  star  (**) 
a  measure  which  passed  both  Houses. 

1.  President  Buchanan's  message.     [  §  86.] 

1860,  Dec.  4.  Paragraph  on  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves  :  Senate  Journal,  36  Cong. 
2  Sess.,  1 8. 

2.  Cochrane's  Joint  Resolution.     [  §  86.] 

1860,  Dec.  12.  To  amend  the  Constitution,  for  the  return  of  fugitives:  House  Jour 
nal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  6 1  ;  Cong.  Globe,  77. 

3.  Morris's  Resolution.     [  §  86.] 

1860,  Dec.  12.  To  amend  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law:  House  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess. 
63  ;  Cong.  Globe,  77. 

4.  Leake's  Joint  Resolution.     [  §  86.] 

1860,  Dec.  12.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution:     House  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess., 

65  ;  Cong.  Globe,  77. 

5.  Cox's  Resolution.     [  §  86.] 

1860,  Dec.  12.    To  amend  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law:    Senate  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess., 

66  ;   Cong.  Globe,  77. 

6.  Stevenson's  Resolution.     [  §  86  ] 

1860,  Dec.  12.     To  amend  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law :    House  Journal,  36  Corg.  2  Sess., 

67  ;   Cong.  Globe,  77. 

7.  Niblack's  Resolution.     [  §  86.] 

1860,  Dec.  12.  To  amend  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law :  House  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess., 
69;  Cong.  Globe,  77. 

8.  English's  Joint  Resolution.     [  §  86.  | 

1860,  Dec.  12.  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  on  the  return  of  fugitives  :  House 
Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  68  ;  Cong.  Globe,  78. 

9.  McClernand's  Joint  Resolution.     [  §  86.  | 

1860,  Dec.  12.  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  on  fugitive  slaves  :  House  Journal, 
36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  68 ;  Cong.  Globe,  78. 

10.  Hindman's  Joint  Resolution.     [  §  86.] 

1860,  Dec.  12.  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  :  House  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  70;  Cong.  Globe,  79. 

[117] 


1 T 8  Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Acts  Repealed.  [AFP.  c. 

11.  Kilgore's  Resolution.     [  §  86  ] 

i860,  Dec.  12.    To  amend  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  :    House  Journal,  36  Con*  2  Sess 
70  ;   Cong   Globe,  78. 

12.  Johnson's  Joint  Resolution.     [  §  86.] 

1860    Dec.  13.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves- 
Senate  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  41  ;  Cong.  Globe,  83. 

13.  Crittenden's  Joint  Resolution.     [  §  86.] 

1860 ,  Dec     18.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  for  payment  for  fugitive  slaves: 
Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  114. 

14.  Douglas's  Joint  Resolution.     [  §  86.] 

i860    Dec.  24.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  for   payment  for  fugitive  slaves  : 
Senate  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  61  ;   Cong.  Globe,  183. 

15.  Florence's  Joint  Resolution. 

1861,  Jan.    15.     Amendment   to  the  Constitution  for  payment  for  fugitive  slaves : 
Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  378. 

16.  Morris's  Joint  Resolution. 

1861,   Jan.    23.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  on  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves  • 
Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  527. 

17.  Douglas's  Bill  to  amend  the  Fugitive  Slave  Laws.     [  §  101  I 
1861,  Jan.  28.     Introduced  :  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  586. 

18.  Florence's  Joint  Resolution. 

1861,  Jan.  28.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  against  the  obstruction  of  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Law  by  States  :     Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  598. 

19.  Kellogg's  Joint  Resolution. 

1861,  Feb.  i.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  on  the  power  of  Congress  over  fugi 
tive  slaves  :  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  690. 

20.  Kellogg's  Joint  Resolution. 

1861,  Feb.  26.     Same  as  above :  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess ,  1243. 

21.  Kellogg's  Joint  Resolution. 

1861,  Feb.  27.     Similar  to  above  :  House  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  410  j  Cong.  Globe, 

22.  Peace  Convention  Amendment  to  the  Constitution.    [  §  85.] 

1861,  Feb.  27.     Reported  by  select  committee  :   Senate  Journal,  36  Cono-.  2  Sess    — 
637  ,   Cong.  Globe,  1254. 

23.  Clarence's  Joint  Resolution. 

1861,  Feb.  27.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  for  payment   for  fugitive   slaves 
Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong  2  Sess.,  1260. 

24.  Crittenden's  Joint  Resolution. 

1861,  Feb.  28.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  on  the  power  of   the  States  over 
fugitive  slaves,  etc.  :  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1270. 
*  25.     Compromise  Bill  to  amend  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.     [  §  87.] 
1861,  Mar.  i.     Bill  reported  by  the  select  committee  of  thirty-three  for  the  amend 
ment  of  the  act  for  the  rendition  of  fugitives  from  labor  :  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess., 

T327. Mar.  i.     Vallandigham's  amendment  to  the  above  :  Cong.  Globe,  S6  Cong. 

2  Sess.,  1328. Mar.  i.     Bill  passed  the  House  :  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1327,' 

1328. Mar.  2.     Bill  read  in  the  Senate  .  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.  2  Sess    I-CQ 

26.  Fugh's  Joint  Resolution. 

1861,  Mar.  2.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  on  the  return   of  fugitive   shves  • 
Senate  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess.,  378  ;   Cong  Globe,  1368. 

27.  Johnson's  Joint  Resolution  on  the  return  of  fugitives. 

1861,  Mar.  2.     Amendment  to  the  Constitution  :   Senate  Journal,  36  Con*.  2  Sess, 
382;   Cong.  Globe,  1401. 


iS6o-i86i.]  Resolutions  and  Bills.  119 

28.  Powell's  Joint  Resolution  on  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves. 

1861,  Mar.  2.  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  •  Senate  Journal,  36  Cong.  2  Sess., 
384  ,  Cong.  Globe,  1404. 

29.  Lovejoy's  Resolution  against  the  return  of  fugitives  by  the  Army. 

[  §  95-] 

1861,  July  9.     Introduced  ;  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  1  Sess.,  653  ;  Cong.  Globe,  32. 

30     Trumbull's  confiscation  Bill.     [  §  90.] 

1861,  July  15.     Introduced  :    Senate  Journal,  37  Cong  1  Sess.,  42  ;  Cong.  Globe,  120. 

*  *  31.     Chandler's  confiscation  Act.     [  §  90.] 

1861,  July  15.  Introduced  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  1  Sess.,  44;  Cong.  Globe,  120. 

July  22.  Trumbull's  amendment:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  1  Sess.,jo;  Cong. 

Globe,  218. July  22.  Passed  the  Senate  (yeas  and  nays  not  given)  :  Senate  Journal, 

37  Cong.  1  Sess.,  71 ;  Cong.  Globe,  219. July  23.  Senate  bill  introduced  into  the 

House  and  referred-  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  1  Sess.,  136;  Cong.  Globe,  231. 

Aug.  2.  Reported  with  amendment  in  the  House  :  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  1  Sess., 

197  ;  Cong.  Globe,  409. Aug.  3.  Committee  amendments  :  House  Journal,  37  Cong. 

1  Sess.,  232;  Cong.  Globe,  431. Aug  3.  Passed  the  House  (yeas  60,  nays  48)  : 

House  Journal,  37  Cong  1  Sess.,  235  ;  Cong.  Globe,  431. Aug  5.  Passed  the  Senate 

as  amended  in  the  House  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Con*.  1  Sess.,  178  ;  Cong.  Globe,  434. 

Aug.  6.  Bill  signed  by  the  President  •  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  1  Sess.,  195 ;  Cong. 
Globe,  454. 

32.  "Wilson's  Joint  Resolution  for  discharge  of  fugitives  from  the 
Washington  jail.  [  §  97.] 

1861,  Dec.  4.  Introduced  and  referred:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  24;  Cong. 
Globe,  12. 

*  33.    Wilson's  Resolution  on  repeal  of  the  black  code  in  the  District 
of  Columbia.     [§97.] 

1861,  Dec.  4.  Introduced  and  agreed  to  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  22  ;  Cong. 
Globe,  12. 

*  34.     Clarke's  Resolution  on  persons  in  Washington  jail. 

1861,  Dec.  4.  Introduced  and  agreed  to:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong  2  Sess.,  22  ;  Cong. 
Globe,  [2. 

35.    Lovejoy's  Bill  to  prevent  return  by  the  Army.     [  §  95  ] 

1861,  Dec.  4.     Introduced:  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  16,  Cong.  Globe,  34. 

*36.     Sumner's  Resolution  on  Army  orders  relating  to  fugitive  slaves. 

1861,  Dec.  4.  Introduced  and  agreed  to  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  19;  Cong. 
Globe,  9. 

37.    Trumbull's  Confiscation  Bill. 

1861,  Dec  5.  Introduced  and  read  twice:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  27; 
Cong.  Globe,  10. 

*  38.    Fessenden's  Resolution  on  the  Washington  jail,     f  §  97.] 

1861,  Dec.  9.  Introduced  :  House  Journal,  37  Cong  2  Sess.,  54;  Cong.  Globe,  36. 

Dec.  9.  Aldrich's  amendment:  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  36. Dec.  9.  Love- 
joy's  amendment :  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  36. Dec.  9.  Passed  as  amended : 

Cong  Globe,  37  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  36. 

39.     Bingham's  Resolution  on  the  Washington  jail.     [  §  97.] 

1861,  Dec.  9.  Introduced  and  referred  :  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  52;  Cong. 
Globe,  35. 

40     Merrill's  confiscation  Joint  Resolution.     [  §  91.  | 

1861,  Dec  ii.  Introduced  and  referred:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  36; 
Cong.  Globe,  49. 


I2O  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Acts  Repealed.  [Apr.  c. 

*41.    Hale's  Resolution  on  the  slaves  of  rebels.     [  §  95.] 

1861,  Dec.  16.  Introduced  and  agreed  to  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  45  ; 
Cong.  Globe,  88. 

42.    Wilson's  Bill  for  emancipation  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     [  §  98.  ] 

1861,  Dec  16.  Introduced  and  read  twice:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  47  ; 

Cong.  Globe,  89  Dec.  19.  Referred:  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  153.  [See 

No.  54.]. 

*43.  Sumner's  Resolution  against  the  surrender  of  fugitives  by  the 
Army.  [§95.] 

1861,  Dec.  18.  Introduced  and  agreed  to:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  130; 
Cong.  Globe,  130. 

44.    Lovejoy's  confiscation  and  emancipation  Resolution.     [  §§  91,  95.] 

1861,  Dec.  20.  Introduced  and  laid  on  the  table  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess., 
1 06;  Cong.  Globe,  158. 

*45.     Julian's  Resolution  to  amend  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.     [§95.] 

1861,  Dec.  20.  Introduced  and  adopted :  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  103  ;  Cong. 
Globe,  158. 

46.  Shank's  Resolution  on  the  return  of  fugitives  by  the  Army. 
[§95.] 

1861,  Dec.  20.  Introduced  and  referred  :  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  102,  124  ; 
Cong.  Globe,  158,  172. 

*47.     Wilso'n's  Resolution  for  articles  of  war.     [  §  95.] 

1861,  Dec.  20.  Introduced:  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  103;  Cong.  Globe,  158. 

Dec.  23.  Adopted:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  109,  114;  Cong.  Globe,  159, 

1 68. 

48.  "Wilson's  Bill  on  the  arrest  of  fugitives  by  the  officers  of  the  Army 
and  Navy.     [  §  95.] 

1861,  Dec.  23.    Introduced  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  167  ;   Cong.  Globe,  161, 

209. 1862,  Jan.  7.     Committee  Amendments  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  88 ; 

Cong.  Globe,  207.     [  See  No.  53.] 

49.  Howe's  Bill  for  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1850.     [  §  101. J 
1861,  Dec.  26.     Introduced  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  74;   Cong.  Globe,  177. 

50.  Davis's  confiscation  Bill. 

1861,  Dec.  30.  Introduced  and  referred:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  75  ;  Cong. 
Globe,  178. 

**51.  Grimes's  Act  on  criminal  justice  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
[  §  97.] 

1861,  Dec.  30.     Introduced:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,    75;  Cong.  Globe,  182. 
1862,  Jan.  6.     Reported:   Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  199. Jan.   10.     Com 
mittee  amendments  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  98  ;   Cong.  Globe,  264. Jan.  10 

Powell's  amendment:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  98,  109;  Cong.  Globe,  264,  319. 

Jan.  14.     Pearce's  two  amendments  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  109  ;  Cong 

Globe,  319. Jan.  14.    Ten  Eyck's  amendment :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  109  , 

Cong.   Globe,  320. Jan.  14.     Harlan's  amendment.   Cong.   Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.. 

320. Jan.  14.   Clark's  amendment :   Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  320. Jan    14. 

Saulsbury's  amendment :  Senate  Journal,  S7  Cong.  2  Sess.,  109;   Cong.   Globe,  320. 

Jan.  14.    Clark's  amendment :   Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  321. Jan.  14.     Passed 

the  Senate  (yeas  31,  nays  4)  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  109  ;   Cong.  Globe,  321. 

52.  Trumbull's  Bill  for  the  confiscation  of  property  of  rebels  and  to  free 
the  slaves  of  rebels.  [  §  91.] 

1862,  Jan.  15.     Reported  from  the  Senate  Committee  on  Judiciary  :  Senate  Journal, 
37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  113  ;   Cong.  Globe,  334.     [See  No.  57.] 


1861-1862.]  Resolutions  and  Bills.  12 1 

53     Amendments  to  Wilson's  Bill  on  Army  and  Navy  officers.     [  §95.] 
1862,  Jan    16.     [See  No.  48.]     Collamer's  amendment  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2 

Sess.,  116;  Cong  Globe,  358. Jan.  16.    Saulsbury's  amendment :  Senate  Journal,  87 

Cong.  2  Sess .,  116;  Cong.   Globe,  358. Jan.  16.     Rice's  amendment  to  Saulsbury's 

amendment :   Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  359. 
54.    Wilson's  District  of  Columbia  Bill.     [  §  98.] 
1862,  Feb.  12.     [See  No.  41.]     Reported:  Cong.  Globe,  37  Con*.  2  Sess.,  785. 

*  55.     Wilson's  Resolution  on  the  management  of  the  Washington  jail. 
1862,   Feb    18.     Introduced  and  agreed  to:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  217  ; 

Cong.  Globe,  86  r. 

56.  Wilson's  Bill  to  repeal  the  black  code  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
[  §  98.] 

1862,  Feb.  24.    Introduced  and  referred  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  263  ;  Cong. 
Globe,  917. 

57.  Amendments  to  the  confiscation  Bill.     [  §  91.] 

1862,  Feb.  25.     [See  No.   52.]     Trumbull's  amendment :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2 

Sess.,  239;  Cong.  Globe,  942. Feb.  25.     Sumner's  amendment:  Senate  Journal,  37 

Cong.  2  Sess.,  239  ;  Cong.  Globe,  946. Feb.  27.     Davis's  substitute  :   Cong.  Globe,  37 

Cong.  2  Sess.,  986.     [See  No.  59.] 

*  *  58.     Blair's  Act  prohibiting  return  by  the  Army.     [  §  95.] 

1862,  Feb.  25.     Introduced:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  358;  Cong.  Globe,  955. 

Feb  25.     Bingham's  amendment :  House  Journal,  37    Cong.  2  Sess.,  358  ;  Cong. 

Globe,  955. Feb.  25.     Passed  the  House  (yeas  95,  nays  51):  House  Journal,  37 

Cong.  2  Sess.,  265;  Cong.  Globe,  958. Mar.  10.  In  the  Senate;  Davis's  amend 
ment.  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  .Sm.,  285  ;  Cong.  Globe,  1142. Mar.  10.  Sauls 
bury's  amendment-  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  284;  Cong.  Globe,  1142.  

Mar.   10.     MacDdugall's  amendment :   Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  284 ,    Cong. 

Globe,  1142. Mar.   10.     Saulsbury's  amendment:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  S^Sess., 

284;   Cong.  Globe  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1142.  Mar   10     Passed  the  Senate  (yeas  29,  nays 

9).  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  285;  Cong.  Globe,  1142. Mar.  14.     Approved 

by  the  President :  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1243. 

59.  Harris's  confiscation  Bill.     [  §  91.] 

1862,  Mar.  14.     Introduced  and  referred  :   Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,   304  ; 
Cong.  Globe,  1228.     [See  No.  63.] 

60.  Report  of  House  Judiciary  Committee  on  confiscation. 

1862,  Mar.  30      Adverse  to  all  bills  referred  by  the  House  :   Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2 
Sess.,  1303.     [See  No.  64  ] 

61.  Wilson's  Resolution  on  the  return  of  fugitives  by  the  Army  and 
Navy 

1862,  Apr.  3.     Introduced  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  361  ,   Cong.  Globe,  1546. 
[See  No.  70.  | 

*  62.    Bill  for  the  abolition   of  slavery   in   the    District  of   Columbia. 
[§98.  | 

1862,  Apr.  3.     Passed  the  Senate  :   Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess  .  1648.    [See  No.  65  ] 

63.  Sherman's  Amendment  to  Harris's  confiscation  Bill. 

1862,    Apr.    10.     [See  No.  59.]     Introduced  :    Cong.  Globe,  37    Cong.  2  Sess.,  1652. 
[See  No.  67.] 

64.  Wilson's  Bill  to  amend  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.     [  §  101  ] 

1862,   Apr.   II.     Introduced:    Senate  Journal,  37   Cong    2  Sess.,   385;   Cong.   Globe, 

1624  Apr.    14.     Harris's  amendment:   Cong.    Globe,   37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1652. 

Apr.  14.  Grimes's  amendment .  Senate  Journc.l,  37  Cong.  2  Sess  ,  393,  439 ;  Cong.  Globe, 
1692. 


122  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Acts  Repealed.  [APP.  c. 

*  65.    Bill  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     [  §  98.] 
1862,  Apr.  16.     [See  No.  62.]     Passed  the  House  •   Cong.   Globe,  37  Cong.  2   Sess., 

1686.     Approved  by  the  President. 

66.  Lovejoy's  Bill  on  return  of  fugitives  by  the  Army.     [  §  95.] 

1862.  Apr.  16.     Reported  adversely  from  the  Committee  on  Judiciary  in  the  House  : 
Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1682. 

67.  Harris's  confiscation  Bill.     [  §  91.] 

1862,  Apr.  16.     [See  No.  63.]     Reported  from  the  Senate  Committee  on  Judiciary: 

Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  400  ;   Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong  2  Sess.,  1678. Apr.  22. 

Walton's    amendment:    Cong.    Globe,   37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1771. Apr.   22.     Porter's 

amendment:    Senate    Journal,   37    Cong.   2   Sess.,    703;     Cong.   Globe,   1767,   1772. 

Apr.  22.    Bingham's  amendment :  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1767. Apr.  22.     Col. 

lamer's   amendment'.    Cong.   Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1782,  1895. Apr.  24.     Motion 

to   recommit:    Senate   Journal,  37  Cong.  2   Sess.,  434;  Cong.   Globe,  1856,  1886.     [See 
No.  71.] 

68.  House  confiscation  Bill.     [  §  91.] 

1862,  Apr.  23.     A  Select  Committee  raised  in  the  House  ;  House  Journal,  37  Cong. 
2  Sess.,  602  ;   Cong.  Globe,  1788,  1820. 

69.  Eliot's  confiscation  and  emancipation  Bill.     [  §  91.] 

1862,    Apr.    30.     Introduced :    House   Journal,  37    Cong.  2  Sess.,  625 ;    Cong.   Globe, 
1886.     |  See  No.  73.] 

70.  Saulsbury's  amendment  of  Wilson's  Resolution. 

1862,  May  i.     [See  No.  6i.J     Introduced:   Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  439  ; 
Cong.  Globe,  1894. 

71.  Harris's  confiscation  Bill  recommitted.     [§91.] 

1862,  May  6.     [See  No.  67.]    Wilson's  amendment  of  Collamer's  amendment :  Senate 

Journal,  37    Cong.    2   Sess.,  450;   Cong.    Globe,    1954. May  6.     Final  vote  :  Senate 

Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  450;   Cong  Globe,  1954,  1965. 

72.  Clark's  confiscation  Bill.     (§91.| 

1862,  May  14.     Reported:  Senate  Journal,  37   Cong.  2  Sess.,  476;   Cong.  Globe,  2112. 

May  14.     Discussed  but  not  acted  upon  :  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  2163,  2188, 

2219,  2842. 

73.  Confiscation  and  emancipation  Bill.     [  §  91.] 

1862,  May  14.     [See  No.  69.]     Reported  in  the  House.   House  Journal,  37  Cong.  2 
Sess.,  683  ;   Cong.  Globe,  2128.     [See  No.  75.] 

74.  Sumner's  Resolution  on  fugitive  slaves. 

1862,  May  22.     Introduced:  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  520,   Cong.  Globe,  2275. 

May  23.  Grimes's  amendment :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  523  ;   Cong  Globe, 

2306. May  26.     Walton's  emancipation  bill  amendment :   Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2 

Sess.,  2362,  2363. 

75.  Emancipation  Bill. 

1862,  June  4.     [See  No.  73]     Recommitted  :  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  799; 
Cong.  Globe,  2561.     [See  No.  76.] 

76.  Julian's  Bill  to  repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.     [  §  101.] 

1862,  June  9      Introduced  with  a  resolution:  House  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  826; 
Cong.  Globe,  2623. 

77.  Colfax's  Resolution  demanding  trial  by  jury  for  fugitives. 

1862,  June  9.     Introduced  :  House   Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sesf.,  828;   Cong.  Globe,  2624. 

*  78.     Bill  for  emancipation  of  fugitives  from  disloyal  masters.     [  §  91.] 
1862,  June    17.     [See  No.  75]     Reported  in  the  House:  House  Journal,  37  Cong  2 

Sess.,  874  ;    Cong.    Globe,    2764. June   18.     Eliot's    substitute  ••    House   Journal,  37 

Cong.   2  Sess.,  282;    Cong.  Globe,   2793. June    18.     Emancipation  bill  passed  the 


1862-1864.]  Resolutions  and  Bills.  123 

House  (  yeas  82,  nays  54)  :  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  2793. June  23.     Clark's 

Senate  amendment  to  Eliot's  substitute  :  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  2879,  299°- 

June  28.     Trumbull's  Amendment  :  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  2999,  3006. 

*  *  79.     Progress  of  the  confiscation  Bill.     [  §  91.  J 

1862,  June  28.     Passed  the  Senate  (yeas  28,  nays  13)  :  Senate  Journal,  87  Cong.  2 

Sess.,  726. July  ii.     Report  of  Conference  Committee  adopted   by  the   House: 

House  Journal,   37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  1045;  Cong.    Globe,  3267. July   12.     Report  of 

Conference  Committee  adopted  by  the  Senate  :  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.  2  Sess.,  814; 

Cong.  Globe,  3275. July  17.     Approved  by  the  President:    Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  2 

Sess.,  3403. 

80.  Bills  for  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.    [  §§  101-103.] 

1863,  Feb.  8.     Ten  Eyck's  report  on  Wilson's  repeal  bill:  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.  3 

Sess. Dec.  14.     Stevens's  repeal  bill:  House  Journal,  38  Cong.  1  Sess.,  43  ;   Cong. 

Globe,  19. Dec.  14.     Julian's  repeal  bill:  House  Journal,  38   Cong.   1   Sess.,  43, 

Cong.  Globe,  20. Dec.  14,     Ashley's  repeal  bill :  House  Journal,  38  Cong   1  Sess., 

43  ;   Cong.  Globe,  29. 1864,  Feb   8.    Sumner's  repeal  bill :  Senate  Journal,  38  Cong. 

1  Sess.,  133  ;    Cong.  Globe,  521. Feb.  8.     Spalding's  repeal  bill :   House  Journal,  38 

Cong.  1  Sess.,  235;  Cong.  Globe,  526. Feb.  29.     Sumner's  bill   reported:    Senate 

Journal,  38  Cong.  1  Sess.,  196  ;  Cong.  Globe,  864.     [See  No.  84.] 

81.  Saulsbury's  substitute  on  the  validity  of  personal  liberty  laws  in 
the  States,  etc. 

1864,  Apr.  8.      Joint   resolution   for   an   amendment   to   the   Constitution :    Senate 
Journal,  38  Cong.  1  Sess.,  311  ;   Cong.  Globe,  1489. 

82.  Discussion  of  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.     [  §  101.] 

1864,  Apr.  19.  [See  No.  So.]  Sherman's  amendment :  Senate  Journal,  38  Cong.  1 
Sess.,  348;  Cong.  Globe,  1710,  1714. Apr.  19.  Henderson's  amendment  to  Sher 
man's  amendment:  Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong.  1  Sess.,  1710. Apr.'  19  Saulsbury's 

amendment :  Senate -Journal,  38  Cong.  1  Sess.,  348,  621  ;  Cong.   Globe,  1715,  3191. 

Apr.  19.     Hale's  amendment  to  Saulsbury's  amendment :  Senate  Journal,  38  Cong  1 

Sess.,  358;  Cong.  Globe,  1782. Apr.  21.     Howard's  amendment:  Senate  Journal, 

33  Cong.  1  Sess.,  358;  Cong.  Globe,  1782.     [See  No.  Si.] 

*  *  83.     Act  repealing  the  Fugitive  Slave  Acts.     [  §§  101-104.] 

1864,  June  6.      [See  No.  82.]      Hubbard's   repeal    resolution  :   House   Journal,  38 

Cong.  1  Sess.,  749.  June  6.     House    substitute  for  repeal  bill,  reported   by  the 

Committee  on  Judiciary:  House  Journal,  38  Cong.   1   Sess.,   755;    Cong.    Globe,  2774. 

June  13.  Passed  House  (yeas  82,  nays  57)  :  House  Journal,  38  Cong.  1  Sess.,  503; 

Con*.  Globe,  2920. June  15.     Referred  in  the  Senate  :   Senate  Journal,  38  Cong. 

1  Sess.,  561  ;  Cong.  Globe,  2963. June  23.     Saulsbury's  amendment:   Senate  Jour 
nal,  38  Cong.  1  SL-SS.,  621;  Cong.   Globe,  1864. June  23.     Johnson's  amendment: 

Senate  Journal,  38  Cong.  1  Sess.,  621;  Cong.  Globe,  3191. June   23.     Passed   the 

Senate:    Senate   Journal,  38    Cong    1    Sess.,  621;    Cong    Globe,   3191. June    28 

Signed  by  the  President :  House  Journal,  38  Cong   1  Sess.,  931 ;  Cong  Globe,  3360. 


APPENDIX    D.  , 

LIST  OF  IMPORTANT  FUGITIVE  SLAVE   CASES. 


No  attempt  has  been  made  to  present  a  full  list  of  cases,  but  only  such  as  had 
especial  influence  on  the  public  mind,  or  such  as  illustrate  some  special  phase  of  the 
question. 

1.  New  Netherlands  and  Hartford  controversy.      [§  11.] 

^646.  Escapes  from  both  colonies :  Winthrop,  History  of  New  England,  383 ; 
fifroore,  Notes  on  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  28  ;  Doyle,  English  in  America, 

I.  391. 

2.  Escape  to  Manhattan.     [§  7.] 

1659.  Four  men  escaped  from  New  Amsterdam  :  New  York  Colonial  Manuscripts, 
XIII.  238;  Documentary  History  of  N.  Y.  Colony,  II.  556  (Ch.  I.  p.  4). 

3.  Escape  of  white  servants  to  Cape  May.     [§  9.] 

1661.     Virginian  white  colonists  escape  :  New  York  Colonial  Manuscripts,  XIII.  346. 

4.  Escape  to  the  Indians.     [§  8.] 

The  negro  servants  of  the  Governor  of  Virginia :  New  York  Colonial  Manuscripts, 

II.  637. 

5.  Escape  from  English  to  French.     [§  11.] 

1748.  Negro  servant  escapes  from  English  to  Canada :  New  York  Colonial  Manu 
scripts,  X.  209.  •' 

6.  Crispus  l&ttucks.     [§  5.] 

1750,  Oct.^  Escaped  from  Framingham,  Mass.:  Boston  Gazette,  Oct.  2,1750;  Lib 
erator,  Mar.  16$S60  ;  Nineteenth  Anniversary  of  Boston  Massacre,  W.  C.  Neil,  Address  ; 
Williams,  History  of 'the  Negro  Race  in  America,  I.  330. 

7.  Glasgow.    "[§  12.] 

Slave  freed  in  Glasgow:  Mass.  Historical  Society  Collections,  Third  Series,  IX.  2. 

8.  Shanley  v.  Haney.     [§  12.] 

1762.     Slave  freed  in  England :  Qiiincy,  Reports  of  Cases,  96. 

9.  Somersett  case,     [§  12.] 

1772.  England  will  not  return  a  fugitive  slave  :  Moore,  Slavery  in  Mass.,  117;  Cobb, 
Historical  Sketch  of  Slavery,  163  ;  Goodell,  Slavery  and  Antislavery,  44-52;  Hunt,  Law 
of  Freedom  and  Bondage,  I.  189-193;  Broom,  Constitutional  Law,  6-119;  Howclls,  State 
Trials,  XX.  i  ;  Tasswell-Langmead,  English  Constitutional  History,  300,  n. 

10.  Ship  Friendship,  case  of.     [§  5.] 

1770.     Harbored  a  slave  :  Moore,  Slavery  in  Mass.,  117. 

11.  John.     l§  17.] 

1778.  Free  negro  kidnapped  in  Pennsylvania:  Am.  State  Papers,  I.  39;  Cong.  Globe, 
31  Cong.  1  Scss.,  Appendix,  1585. 

[124]  r. 


1646-1842.]  Important  Fugitive  Slave  Cases.  125 

12.  Quincy's  case.     [§  34.] 

1793.  First  case  in  Boston  after  1793:  Edw.  C,  Learned,  Speech  on  The  New  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Lazv,  Chicago,  Oct.  25,1850;  Whittier,  Prose  Works,  u,  129,  A  Chapter  of 
History  ;  Goodell,  Slavery  and  Antislavery,  232 ;  Boston  Atlas,  Oct.  15, 1850. 

13.  Washington's  slave.     [§  35.] 

1796,  Oct.  President  Washington  demanded  a  slave  from  Portsmouth,  N.  H. :  Mag 
azine  of  American  History,  Dec.,  1877,  p.  759;  Charles  Sumner,  Works t  III.  177. 

14.  North  Carolina  fugitives.     [§  19.] 

1796.     Annals  of  Congress,  1796-7,  p.  2015,  1801-2,  p.  343. 

15.  Columbia  case. 

1804.     General  Boude  defends  a  runaway:  Smedley,  Underground  Railroad,  26. 

16.  Solomon  Northup.     [§  38.] 

1808.     Kidnapping  at  Saratoga,  N.  Y. :  Solomon  Northrup,  Autobiography. 

17.  Williams  case. 

1815.     Claimed  as  a  fugitive  in  Philadelphia  :  Greeley,  American  Conflict,  I.  216. 

18.  Priggcase.     [§27.] 

1832.  16  Peters,  539 ;  Report  of  Case  of  Edward  Prigg,  Supreme  Court,  Pennsyl 
vania;  Cobb,  Historical  Sketch  of  Slavery ;  Bledsoe,  Liberty  and  Slavery,  355;  Clarke, 
Antislavery  Days,  69 ;  Hnrd,  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage,  II.  456-492  ;  Wilson,  Rise 
and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Pcnver,  I.  472-473  ;  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History,  III.  310-312. 

19.  Kidnapping  of  Jones.     [§37.] 

1836.     Kidnapping  in  New  Jersey  :  Liberator,  Aug.  6,  1836. 

20.  Chickasaw  rescue.     [§  42.] 

1836.  Rescue  of  two  colored  women  on  brig  Chickasaw:  Liberator,  Aug.  6, 1S86. 

21.  Schooner  Boston  case.     [§  47.] 

1837.  Georgia  and  Maine  controversy:   Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power, , 
I.  473.     Niles's  Register,  LIII.  71,  72,  LV.  356;  Senate  Journal,  1839-40,  pp.  235-237; 
Senate  Doc.,  2Q  Cong.  1  Sess.,  Vol.  V.  Doc.  273. 

22.  Philadelphia.     [§43.] 

1838.  Attempted  rescue :  Liberator,  March  16, 1838. 

23.  Escape  of  Douglass.     [§§  68,  75.] 

1838.  Escape  of  Frederick  Douglass  :  Life  and  Times  of  Douglass  ;  Williams,  Negro 
Race  in  America,  II.  59,  422  ;   Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  I.  501,  502. 

24.  Isaac  Gansey  case.     [§  47.] 

1839.  Virginia  and  New  York  controversy:   U.  S.  Gazette,  Case  of  Isaac,  Judge  Hop- 
kinsort's  speech;   Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  I.  474;  Seward,   Works,  II. 
449-518;   Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History,  II.  538-540;  Senate  Documents,  27  Cong. 
2  Sess.,  Vol.  II.  Doc.  96. 

25.  Van  Zandt  case.     [§  50.] 

1840.  Prosecution  for  aiding  escape :    Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Fencer, 
I.  475  ;   T.  R'.  Cobb,  Historical  Sketch  of  Slavery,  207. 

26.  Oberlin  case.     [§  50.] 

1841  (about).     Liberator,  May  21,  1841. 

27.  Thompson  case. 

1841.  July.     Prosecution  for  aiding  escapes  :   Thompson,  Prison  Life  and  Reflections; 
Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  69  ;  Goodell,  Slavery  and  Antislavery,  440. 

28.  Latimer  case.     [§  44.] 

1842.  Famous  fugitive  slave  case,  Boston  :  Liberator,  Oct.  25,  Nov.  11,  Nov.  25,  IStf, 
Feb.  3,  7,  17,  18J3,  and  Aug.  16,  1SU  ;  Law  Reporter,  Latimer  case  ;  Eleventh  Annual 
Report  of  Mass.  Antislavery  Society  ;  Mass.  House  Journal,  1S43,  pp.  72,  1 58 ;  Mass.  Senate" 
Journal,  1SJ3,  p.  232 ;   Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  L_  477. 


UNIVERSITY 


126  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  List  of  Cases.  [APR  D. 

29.  Goin  case. 

1844.     Attempted  seizure  of  fugitive  :  Liberator,  April  19, 18^. 

30.  Thomas  case. 

1844.     Seizure  in  Marietta,  Perm. :  Liberator,  June  14,  184$. 

31.  Walker  case.     [§50.] 

1844.  Prosecution  for  aiding  escapes  :   Trial  and  Imprisonment  of  Jonathan  Walker, 
Liberator,  Aug.  16,  31,  Sept.  6,  13,  Oct.  18,  25,  and  Dec.  27,  1SU,  Aug.  8,  15,  and  July 
18,  1845. 

32.  Smithburg. 

1845.  Battle  between  whites  and  ten  runaways  :  Liberator,  June  27,  184-5. 

33.  Kirk  case. 

Between  1845  and  1849.  Unsuccessful  attempt  to  capture  George  Kirk  in  New 
York  :  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  52.  Supplement  to  iVew  York  Legal 
Observer,  containing  report  of  case,  Boston  Public  Library. 

34.  Brig  Ottoman.     [§  45.] 

1846.  Unsuccessful  attempt  to  rescue  slave  on  brig :   Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the 
Slave  Power,  II.  54. 

35.  Kennedy  case.     [43.] 

1847.  Riot  in  Carlisle,  Penn.  :    Liberator,  Sept.  10,  27,  1847 ;    Congressional  Globe, 
1860-61,  pp.  801,  802,  908. 

36.  Slaves  on  board  Brazilian  ship. 

1847.  Attempt  to  trescue:    Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  53;  Liber 
ator,  Aug.  20,  1847. 

37.  Ohio  and  Kentucky  controversy.     [§  48  ] 

1848.  Controversy  on  account  of  extradition  demanded :  Liberator,  July  14,  1848. 

38.  South  Bend^fcase. 

1847,  Oct.  9.     Fugitives  discharged  on  trial  in  Michigan  :  South  Bend  Fugitive  Slave 
case. 

39.  Brig  Wm.  Purrington. 

1848.  Escape  from  :  Liberator,  Dec.  31,  1848. 

40.  Drayton  and  Sayres.     [§  50.] 

1848.  Prosecution  for  aiding  escapes:  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power, 
II.  104. 

41.  Crafts  escape.     [§  69.] 

\|         1848.     Escape  of  William  and  Ellen  Crafts:  Liberator,  ATov.  1,  1850;  Still,  Under 
ground  Railroad,  368  ;    Wilson,  Rise  and  Kill  of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  325. 

42.  Washington  case.     [§  39.] 
Between  1840-1850  :  Liberator,  May  26,  1848. 

43.  Hamlet  case.     [§  53.] 

1850.  Rendition  in  N.  Y.  :  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  its  tiistery  and  Unconstitutionally, 
with  an  Account  of  the  Seizure  of  James  Hamlet,  3  ;  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave 
Power,  II.  304. 

44.  Gannett  case. 

1850,  Oct.  18.  Alleged  fugitive  discharged  in  Philadelphia:  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall 
of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  326;  May,  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  its  Victims,  8. 

45.  Gibson  case. 

1850,  Dec.  21.     Rendition  of  an  innocent  man  :    Wilson,  Rise  and  F.tll  of  the  Slave 
Power,  II.  327;  May,  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  its  Victims,?*;  Still,  Underground  Rail 
road,  349. 

46.  Case  in  Pennsylvania. 

1851,  Jan.     House  of  colored  man  entered  by  force  :  Liberator,  Jan.  10,  1851. 


1344-1854-]  Important  Fugitive  Slave  Cases.  127 

/47.   Sims  case.    [§  54.] 

1851.      Rendition  in   Boston:   Liberator,   April  17  and  18,   1851;  Daily  Morning' 
Chronicle,  April  26,   1851;    Twentieth    Annual  Report  of  Mass.    Antislavery   Society, 
1855,  p.  19  ;  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  333  ;  New  England  Magazine, 
\  June,  1890  ;  May,  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  its  Victims,  1 6 ;   Trial  of  Sims,  Arguments  by 
R.  Rantoul,Jr.  and  C.  G.  Loring  ;  C.  F.  Adams,  Richard  Henry  Dana,  I.  185-301. 
(  48.  Shadrach  case.     [§  57.] 

*  1851,  Feb.  Rendition  in  Boston  :  Liberator,  Fel>.  21,  May  30,  1851 ;  Cong.  G.lobe, 
31  Co  tig.  2  Sess.,  Appendix,  238,  295,  510;  Von  Hoist,  111.  21  ;  May,  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  and  its  Victims,  10;  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  329;  New 
England  Magazine,  May,  IS 90  ;  Boston  Traveller,  Feb.  15,  185 1 ;  Boston  C 02 trier,  Feb. 
17,  1851 ;  Washington  National  Era,  Feb.  27,  1851 ;  Statesman's  Manual,  III.  1919. 

49.  Christiana  case.     [§  60.] 

1851,  Sept.  Riot  in  Christiana  :  Parker's  account,  The  Freedman's  Story,  T.  W. 
Higginson,  Atlantic  Monthly,  Feb.  and  March,  1866  ;  U.  S.  v.  Hanway,  Treason,  247 
Smedley,  Underground  Railroad,  105,  107,  130,  223;  May,  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  14; 
Lunsford  Lane,  114;  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  324;  History  of  the 
Trial  of  Castner  Hanway  and  others  for  Treason  ;  N.  Y.  Tribune,  Sept.  12,  1851,  and 
Nov.  26  to  Dec.  12 ;  Greeley,  American  Conflict,  I.  215  ;  National  Antislavery  Standard, 
Sept.  18,  1851 ;  Lowell  Journal,  Sept  19,  1851;  Boston  Daily  Traveller,  Sept.  12,  1851; 
Still,  Underground  Railroad,  348. 

50.  Miller.     [§  61.]'  ' 

1851,  Nov.  Mr.  Miller  murdered:  Liberator,  Feb.  ^,  1853  ;  Lunsford  Lane,  113; 
May,  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  15  ;  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  324.  . 

51.  Jerry  case.     [§  58.] 

1851,  Oct.  Rescue  in  Syracuse,  N.  Y.  :  Liberator,  Oct.  10  to  17,  1851 ';  Life  of 
Gerrit  Smith,  117;  Trial  of  H.  W.  Allen,  3;  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  ^of^he  Slave 
Power,  II.  327. 

52.  Parker  rescue. 

1851,  Dec.  31.  Rescue  by  Mr.  Miller:  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Pcnver, 
II.  324;  May,  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  its  Victims,  15;  Liberator,  1853,  Feb.  fy  ; 
Lnnsford  Lane,  113. 

53.  Brig  Florence 

1853.  Rescue  of  slave  on  board  by  Mr.  Bearse  :  Bearse,  Reminiscences  of  Fugitive 
Slave  Days  in  Boston,  34. 

54.  Lewis  case. 

1853.  Escape  of  Lewis  from  trial :  Liberator,  Oct.  28,  1853. 

55.  Glover  case. 

1854.  Joshua  Glover  rescued  by  a  mob  at  Milwaukee  :    Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the 
Slave  Power,  444  ;  Liberator,  April  7,  2^,  185$.. 

56.  Bath. 

1854.      Escape  to  Canada  from  ship  from  Florida :  Liberator,  Oct.  6,  1854.. 
l    57.   Burns  case.     [§  55.] 

^  1854.  Rendition  in  Boston  :  Liberator,  May,  June,  1854,  Aug.  22,  1861 ;  Kidnap 
ping  of  Burns,  Scrapbook  collected  by  Theo.  Parker  ;  Personal  Statement  of  Mr.  El- 
bridge  Sprague,  AT.  Abington ;  Accounts  in  Boston  Journal,  May  27,  29,  185$.  ;  Daily 
Advertiser,  May  26,  29,  June  7,  S,  July  17  ;  Traveller,  A  fay  27,  29,  June  2,  3,  6,  10,  July 
15,  1$,  Oct.  3,  Nov.  29,  Dec.  5,  7,  1854,  April  3,  4, 10, 11, 1855  ;  Evening  Gazette,  May  27, 
1854  ;  Worcester  Spy,  May  31 ;  Argument  of  Mr.  R.  H.  Dana  ;  Afay,  Fugitive  Slave 
Lcnv  and  its  Victims,  256;  Clarke,  Antislavery  Days,  87;  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the 

\       &  * 


128  Fugitive  Slaves:—  List  of  Cases.  [APP.  D. 

Slave  Power,  II.  435,  Stevens,  History  of  Anthony  Burns ;  Greeley,  Amouan  Conflict 
I.  218,  New  York  Tribune,  May  26,  1854;  Liberator,  June  2,  9,  16,  1854;  Von  Hoist- 
VI.  62,  Garrisons1  Garrison,  II.  201,  III.  409;  C.  F.  Adams,  Dana,  I.  262-330. 

58.  Garner.     [§  56  ] 

1856.  Rendition  of  a  family  in  Ohio  :  Liberator,  Feb.  8,22,  20,  185G ;  May,  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  and  its  Victims,  37;  Lunsford  Lane,  119;  Greeley,  American  Conflict, 
I  219  ,  Lalor's  Cyclopaedia,  I.  207  ,  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  II.  446, 447. 

59.  Williamson  case 

1856,  Jan.     Prosecution   for  aiding  fugitives  .    Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave 
Power,   II.  448;    May,  Fugitive  Slave   Law  and  its   Victims,  9,34;  Annual  Report  of 
American  A nti slavery  Society,  N.  Y,  May  7,  1856,  p.  24 ;  Narrative  of  the  Facts  in  the 
Case  of  Passmore  Williamson,  Penn.  Antislavcry  Society. 
.60.   Johnson  case. 

1856,  July  16.     Rescue  of  slave  on  ship  from  Mobile  :   Liberator,  July  18,  1856. 
61.   Gatchell  case. 

1857,  Jan.       Rendition  of  Philip   Young  :    Chambers,  Slavery  and  Color ;   Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  Appendix,  197. 

62    Ob erlin -Wellington  case.     [§  59  ] 

1858,  Rescue  at  Wellington  :   Liberator,  Jan.  28,  April  29,  May  6,  June  3,  June  10, 
1859;  Shepherd,  Oberlin- Wellington  Rescue;  Lunsford  Lane,  179,  Anglo-African  Mag 
azine  (Oberlin-Wellington  Rescue],  209;  May,  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  its  Victims,  108.' 

63.  John  Brown's  Raid,     |§  62.] 

1858.  Raid  in  Missouri:     Sanborn,   Life  and  Letters  of  John  Brown,    420;     Von 
Hoist,  John  Brown,  104. 

64.  Nalle  case. 

1859.  April  28.     Rescue  of  Charles  Nalh  by  a  mob :    Bradford,  Harriet,  the  Moses 
of  her  People,  Appendix,  143  ;  Liberator,  May  4.,  1830. 

65.  Anderson  case.     [§  23  ]  ^ 

1860.  Extradition    case    between    U.    S.    and    Canada:    Liberator,    Dec.   3,  I860; 
Pamphlets   on   Anderson    Case,   Boston    Public    Library;     Life   of  Gernt    Smith     1C- 
Liberator,  Jan.  22,  1861.  ^ 

66.  Wisdom  case.     [§  91.] 

1861      Rendition  by  army  officers  :  Liberator,  July  19,  1861. 

67.  Major  Sherwood's  servant.     [§  91. | 

1861.  Rendition  ordered  in  army  :  Liberator,  July  10,  1861. 

68.  Norfolk  case. 

1863.     Kidnapping  by  N.  Y.  Volunteers  :  Liberator,  March  27, 

69.  Archer  Alexander 

1863.     Fugitive  during  the  war1  Archer  Alexander. 


APPENDIX    E. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY    OF   FUGITIVE    SLAVE    CASES    AND 
FUGITIVE    SLAVE  LEGISLATION. 


1.  Sources  of  information.  8.  Speeches. 

2.  Libraries.  9.  Reminiscences. 

3.  Secondary  works.  ro.  Reports  of  societies. 

4.  Biographies.  n.  Periodicals  and  newspapers. 

5.  Original  sources.  12  Materials  bearing  on  legislation. 

6.  Slave  autobiographies.  13.  Alphabetical  list  of  works. 

7.  Records  of  trials. 

1.  Sources  of  information. 

There  are  many  sources  from  which  material  for  a  study  of  fugitive  slaves  may  be 
gathered.  Almost  any  work  upon  the  slavery  question  touches  sooner  or  later  upon 
this  topic,  and  the  difficulties  arise  rather  from  the  amount  of  the  literature  which  must 
be  examined  than  from  lack  of  information.  No  formal  bibliography  of  the  subject,  or 
cf  any  phase  of  it,  has  been  found ;  it  has  therefore  been  necessary  to  go  through  a 
large  body  of  material,  and  to  sift  out  references  which  bear  upon  the  subject. 

2.  Libraries. 

The  labor  has  been  much  facilitated  by  the  completeness  and  convenient  arrange 
ment  of  the  literature  bearing  upon  slavery  in  the  libraries  of  Cambridge  and  Boston. 
The  Harvard  College  Library  possesses  two  unique  collections  of  slavery  pamphlets,  one 
the  bequest  of  Charles  Sumner,  the  other  the  gift  of  Colonel  T.  W.  Higginson;  and  the 
Card  Catalogue  of  the  Library  is  a  comprehensive  guide  to  a  large  alcove  of  other 
books.  The  great  collections  of  the  Boston  Public  Library  have  also  been  made  acces 
sible  by  the  full  Card  Catalogue  of  that  Library.  The  Boston  Athenaeum  has  also 
furnished  valuable  material ;  and  in  the  Massachusetts  State  Library  is  an  excellent 
set  of  State  Statutes,  which  has  been  freely  used.  I  have  not  been  able  to  consult 
the  antislavery  collection  of  the  Cornell  Library  at  Ithaca. 

3.  Secondary  works. 

The  material  upon  fugitive  slaves,  as  upon  any  topic,  may  be  divided  into  two 
classes,  secondary  and  original.  The  general  and  local  histories  which  come  under 
the  first  class  have  been  of  good  service  as  guides  to  further  investigation.  The  Rise 
and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America,  by  Henry  Wilson,  takes  up  the  whole  question 
of  slavery  in  a  thorough  manner,  and  devotes  special  attention  to  the  debates  in  Con 
gress.  Though  long  and  ill-arranged,  it  is  comprehensive  and  trustworthy.  Unfortu 
nately,  the  work  is  not  provided  with  foot-notes.  Williams 's  History  of  the  Negro  Race, 
and  Greeley's  American  Conflict,  are  other  surveys  of  the  whole  subject.  For  a  discus 
sion  of  political  forces  and  constitutional  questions,  Von  Hoist  is  the  best  authority, 
while  Hurd,  besides  enumerating  the  statutes  from  colonial  times  down,  considers  the 

[129]  9 


130  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Bibliography.  [APP.  E. 

subject  with  great  clearness  from  a  judicial  point  of  view,  describes  many  cases,  and  in 
foot-notes  gives  references  to  others. 

Studies  of  colonial  slavery  are  found  in  Lodge's  English  Colonies  in  America  and 
Doyle's  English  in  America.  Several  special  essays  have  been  printed  on  slavery  in 
Massachusetts;  Deane's  and  Moore's  Notes  on  Slavery,  and  Washburn's  Extinction  of 
Slavery  in  Massachusetts.  Little  attention  is  in  any  of  these  works  given  to  fugitive 
slaves. 

To  another  class  belong  books  descriptive  of  the  institution  of  slavery.  Mrs. 
Frances  Kemble  wrote  about  life  on  a  Southern  plantation  before  the  war,  and  the 
Cotton  Kingdom  and  other  volumes  by  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  give  many  interesting 
details,  and  furnished  me  with  much  material  for  the  chapter  on  Fugitives  and  their 
Friends. 

4.   Biographies. 

Biographies  of  antislavery  men  are  likely  to  contain  information  on  fugitive  slave 
cases.  The  Life  of  Isaac  T.  Hopper  is  full  of  accounts  of  his  ways  of  aiding  flight,  and 
for  the  same  reason  the  Life  of  Gerrit  Smith  is  exceedingly  interesting.  Birney's  Life 
of  James  G.  Birncy  deals  little  with  fugitives.  The  biographies  of  Mrs.  Lydia  Maria 
Child,  Arthur  and  Lewis  Tappan,  John  Brown,  Garrison,  Phillips,  and  the  Grimke 
sisters,  may  also  be  mentioned.  Others,  like  those  of  Jonathan  Walker,  L.  W.  Paine, 
Daniel  Drayton,  captain  of  the  schooner  Pearl,  W.  L.  Chaplin,  Work,  Burr,  and 
Thompson,  and  the  recently  published  Life  of  Rev.  Calvin  Colman,  relate  simply  the 
stories  of  trials  and  imprisonments  for  aiding  fugitives,  and  are  often  more  in  the  nature 
of  original  than  secondary  sources. 

5    Original  sources. 

Very  early  in  the  preparation  of  this  work  it  became  evident  that  no  writer  had 
systematically  examined  and  compared  the  legislation  of  the  Colonies  and  States,  or 
searched  the  records  of  Congress,  or  looked  for  contemporary  accounts  of  any  con 
siderable  number  of  escapes.  I  was  therefore  obliged  to  search  for  such  original  mate 
rial  as  was  witrfin  my  reach.  Doubtless  some  important  books  and  pamphlets  have 
escaped  me,  and  an  examination  of  other  collections  would  enlarge  the  bibliography  ; 
but  the  effort  has  been  made  to  exhaust  the  literature  of  the  subject,  except  in  news 
papers. 

6.  Slave  autobiographies. 

Out  of  the  great  variety  of  original  sources  containing  descriptions  of  slave  life  and 
escapes,  the  autobiographies  of  the  slaves  themselves  are  the  most  interesting,  and  often 
the  saddest.  The  Rev.  James  Freeman  Clarke  says,  in  his  Antislavery  Days:  "Even 
now,  when  it  is  all  over,  the  flesh  creeps  and  the  blood  curdles  in  the  veins  at  the  ac 
counts  of  the  dreadful  cruelties  practised  on  slaves  in  many  parts  of  the  South.  I  would 
advise  no  one  to  read  such  histories  to-day  unless  his  nerves  are  very  well  strung." 
Frederick  Douglass  has  given  us  two  books,  one  written  before  slavery  was  abolished, 
and  a  fuller  account  afterward,  when  it  was  no  longer  imprudent  to  reveal  the  whole 
story  of  his  escape.  Many  of  these  lives  were  published  by  antislavery  people,  who 
wished  by  such  means  to  rouse  the  North.  Such  are  the  stories  of  Box  Brown,  Peter 
Still,  Archy  Moore,  Solomon  Northrnp,  Lunsford  Lane,  and  others,  most  of  which  have 
been  quoted  above. 

7.  Records  of  trials. 

Much  descriptive  detail  can  often  be  found  in  the  published  reports  of  trials.  A 
volume  is  devoted  to  the  Oberlin-Wellington  case,  and  several  volumes  have  been  pub 
lished  on  the  Burns  trial.  For  the  Prigg  and  Han  way  cases,  and  others  of  importance, 
the  records  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  lower  courts  have  been  consulted.  Most  of  the 
important  cases  were  tried  in  State  courts  or  before  commissioners,  and  the  only  re 
ports  are  fugitive  pamphlets,  of  which  many  have  been  consulted  and  cited. 


Nos.  3-i2.]  Sources.  131 

8.  Speeches. 

In  the  study  of  public  sentiment  and  for  the  weighing  of  argument  the  speeches  of 
PJiillips,  Sumner,  Seivard,  Giddings,  Webster,  Mann,  Rantoul,  Loring,  and  others,  are  of 
the  greatest  value.  They  often  throw  light  upon  obscure  cases,  and  the  fugitive  slave 
stories  brought  in  as  illustrations  have  sometimes  led  to  the  discovery  of  interesting 
and  forgotten  cases. 

9.  Reminiscences. 

A  valuable  aid  in  reconstructing  in  the  mind  the  conditions  of  the  slavery  struggle  are 
the  reminscences  of  participants.  Rev.  James  Freeman  darkens  Antislavery  Days  and 
Mr.  Parker  Pillsbury's  book  have  been  helpful  in  these  chapters.  A  pamphlet  by  Mr. 
Austin  Bearse  describes  the  Fugitive  Slave  Laws  in  Boston,  and  relates  the  work  of 
the  Vigilance  Committee  in  protecting  escaped  negroes.  The  books  of  Still,  Smedleyt 
and  Coffin,  on  the  workings  of  the  Underground  Railroad,  are  composed  chiefly  of 
reminiscences,  and  have  furnished  many  essential  facts. 

10.  Reports  of  societies. 

The  reports  of  the  various  antislavery  societies,  especially  of  those  of  Massachusetts 
and  Pennsylvania,  have  also  been  examined  with  profit  as  to  the  work  among  the  refu 
gees  in  Canada,  etc.  For  the  colonial  period  the  publications  of  the  Massachusetts  and 
New  York  Historical  Societies  are  exceedingly  important,  and  have  been  freely  drawn 
upon. 

11.  Periodicals  and  newspapers. 

Not  much  has  been  gathered  from  periodicals.  Poolers  Index  was  used  and  occa 
sionally  something  of  importance  was  discovered.  Thus  The  Freedmarfs  Story  in  the 
Atlantic  Monthly  has  furnished  one  of  the  most  striking  of  the  stories  about  resistance  to 
escapes.  Such  articles  are  few,  and  occur  long  after  the  slavery  period,  when  such 
disclosures  were  no  longer  unpopular.'  The  Magazine  of  American  History  contains 
several  articles.  Among  newspapers,  the  Liberator  is  without  doubt  the  most  complete 
record  of  the  extreme  antislavery  sentiment  toward  the  fugitive  slave  laws  and  their 
workings.  Each  case  as  it  occurs  is  fully  commented  upon,  and  in  addition  there  is 
each  week  a  column  or  two  of  atrocities,  and  among  them  stories  of  fugitives  are 
often  given.  The  Harvard  College  Library  contains  a  complete  file,  which  I  have 
examined;  and  references  to  the  Liberator  are  therefore  frequent  throughout  the 
work.  The  colonial  newspapers  are  of  little  value,  except  for  the  conclusions  which 
may  be  drawn  from  the  advertisements  for  runaways.  Newspapers  of  that  time  were 
so  limited  in  scope,  that  an  affair  so  unimportant  to  them  as  a  fugitive  slave  case  would 
scarcely  appear. 

12.  Materials  bearing  on  legislation. 

The  materials  for  the  study  of  colonial  legislation  must  be  gathered  from  many 
sources.  The  best  collection  of  them  in  Boston  may  be  found  at  the  State  Library.  In 
some  colonies  there  are  carefully  edited  series  of  volumes  chronologically  arranged, 
but  in  others  the  records  have  been  but  irregularly  printed.  The  laws  of  New  Nether 
lands  and  of  early  New  York  are  easily  accessible  in  well  printed  volumes  of  a  recent 
date.  For  the  Southern  States,  the  Hening  edition  of  the  Virginia  Statutes  at  Large  is 
clear,  and  covers  a  long  period.  There  is  also  the  Cooper  collection  for  South  Caro 
lina,  Bacon's  series  for  Maryland,  Iredell's  edition  of  South  Carolina  Statutes,  and 
Learning  and  Spicer  for  New  Jersey.  There  are  of  course  many  others,  but  these 
comprise  the  most  important. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  Constitutional  period,  the  proceedings  of  Congress  may 
be  followed  as  minutely  as  desired.  An  outline  of  the  proceedings  is  given  in  the 
Journals  of  the  Senate  and  House,  while  for  a  fuller  account  and  reports  of  speeches 
the  Annals  of  Congress  and  Congressional  Debates  to  1837,  and  the  Congressional 
Globes  from  1833  to  1863,  furnish  ample  material.  Information  in  regard  to  the 


I32  Fugitive  Slaves: — Bibliography.  [APP.  E. 

number  and  personnel  of  the  House  is  most  readily  gathered  from  Poore's  Congres 
sional  Directory. 

13.   Alphabetical  list  of  works. 

This  list  includes  all  the  books  and  articles  which  have  been  of  service  in  preparing 
the  monograph,  except  a  few  of  the  general  histories. 

^  Adams,  Charles  Francis,  Jr.     Richard   Henry  Dana:    a  Biography.      2  vols. 
Boston,  1890. 

Allen,  H.  W.  Trial  of  U.  S.  Deputy  Marshal  for  Kidnapping,  etc.  Syracuse, 
1852. 

Antislavery  Almanacs,  miscellaneous  collection  of,  in  the  Library  of  Harvard 
College. 

Antislavery  Pamphlets,  miscellaneous  collection  of,  unsuitable  for  binding,  in 
the  Library  of  Harvard  College. 

Antislavery  Societies,  Annual  Reports  of. 

Amherstburg  Quarterly  Mission  Journal,  Amherstburg,  Canada  West. 

Ball,  J.  P.  Mammoth  Pictorial  Tour  of  the  United  States,  compiled  for  a  Pano 
rama.  Cincinnati,  1855. 

Bayard,  James.  A  Brief  Exposition  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Philadelphia,  1845. 

Bearse,  Anthony.  Remembrances  of  Fugitive  Slave  Law  Days  in  Boston.  Bos 
ton,  1880.  pp.  41. 

Biriiey,  J.  G.  Examination  of  the  Decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  in  the  Case  of  Strader,  Gorman,  and  Armstrong  vs.  Christopher  Graham,  1850. 
Cincinnati,  1851.  pp.  47. 

Bledsoe,  Albert  T.  An  Essay  on  Liberty  and  Slavery.  Philadelphia,  1887. 
PP-  383- 

Bowditch,  H.  I.  To  the  Public.  [Defence  of  his  conduct  in  the  case  of  Latimer 
against  the  charges  of  J.  B.  Gray.]  Boston,  1842.  pp.  11. 

Bowditch,  W.  I.     The  Rendition  of  Anthony  Burns.     Boston,  1854.     pp.  40. 

— .     The  United  States  Constitution  a  Pro-slavery  Instrument.     New  York, 
1855.     pp.  12. 

Bowen,  C.  "W.  Arthur  and  Lewis  Tappan,  a  Paper  read  at  the  Fiftieth  Anniver 
sary  of  the  New  York  City  Antislavery  Society,  Oct.  2,  1883.  New  York,  1883.  (?) 
pp.  116. 

Bowen,  F.    Fugitive  Slaves.    In  North  American  Revinv.  LXXI.  252.    (July,  1850.) 

Boston  Slave  Riot  and  Trial  of  Anthony  Burns.     Boston,  1854. 

Brown,  W.  W.     Narrative  of  a  Fugitive  Slave.     Boston,  1848.     pp.  144. 

Bump,  O.  F.  Notes  of  Constitutional  Decisions,  being  the  Digest  of  the  Provin 
cial  Interpretations  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  etc.  New  York,  1878. 

Canada  Mission,  7th  Annual  Report  of.     Rochester,  N.  Y. 

Case  of  William  R.  Chaplin,  etc.     Boston,  1851.     pp.  54. 

Chambers,  William.     American  Slavery  and  Color.     London,  1857. 

Chase,  S.  P.  Reclamation  of  Fugitive  Slaves  from  Service,  an  Argument  for  the 
Defendant,  submitted  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  at  December  Term, 
1840,  in  Case  of  W.  Jones  vs.  John  Van  Zandt.  Cincinnati,  1847.  pp.  108. 

Child,  Lydia  Maria.  The  Duty  of  Disobedience  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  (an 
Appeal  to  the  Legislators  of  Mass.).  Boston,  1860.  pp.  36. 

.     Isaac  T.  Hopper  (a  True  Life).     Boston,  1853.     pp.  120. 

-.     Letters  of  Lydia  Maria  Child.     Boston.  1883. 

Clarke,  James  Freeman.     Antislavery  Days.     New  York,  1884. 


Nos.  12-13.]  Alphabetical  List.  133 

Clarke,  Lewis  and  Milton,  Narrative  of  the  Sufferings  of,  among  the  Slave 
holders  of  Kentucky.  Boston,  1848.  pp.  144. 

Cobb,  T.  R.     Historical  Sketch  of  Slavery.     Philadelphia,  1836. 

Coffin,  L.  (President  of  Underground  Railroad).  Reminiscences  of  a  Lifetime 
spent  in  Behalf  of  the  Slave.  Cincinnati,  1876. 

Constitutional  Provision,  The,  respecting  Fugitives  from  Justice,  and  the  Act 
of  Congress,  Sept.  18,  1850.  Boston,  1852. 

Cooley,  Thomas  M.  The  General  Principles  of  Constitutional  Law  in  the  United 
States  of  America.  Boston,  1880.  pp.  376. 

Daggs  (Ruel)  vs.  Elihu  Frazier  et  als.  Fugitive  Slave  Case,  Southern  Divis 
ion  of  Iowa.  Burlington,  1850.  pp.  40. 

Peane,  Charles,  and  Moore.     Slavery  in  Massachusetts.     Connecticut,  1877. 

Desty,  Robert.  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  with  Notes  by  Robert  Desty, 
etc.  San  Francisco,  1887. 

Douglass,  Frederick.     Narrative  of  his  Life.     Written  by  himself.    Boston,  1845. 
.  -  Life  and  Times  of  Frederick  Douglass.     Hartford,  1881-82. 

Draytoii,  Daniel.  Personal  Memoirs  of,  for  four  years  and  four  months  (a 
prisoner  for  charity's  sake  in  Washington  Jail),  including  Narrative  of  Voyage  and 
Capture  of  Schooner  Pearl.  New  York,  1855. 

Drew,  Benjamin.  North  Side  View  of  Slavery,  or  Narrative  of  a  Refugee  in 
Canada,  with  an  Account  of  the  History  of  the  Colored  Population  in  Upper  Canada. 
Boston,  1856. 

Eliot,  W.  G.  The  Story  of  Archer  Alexander  from  Slavery  to  Freedom.  Boston, 
1885. 

Elliott,  Chas.  W.  The  New  England  History,  from  the  Discovery  of  the  Con 
tinent  by  the  Northmen,  A.  D.  986,  to  the  Period  when  the  Colonies  declared  their 
Independence,  A.  D.  1776.  2  vols.  New  York,  1857. 

Friend,  By  A.  The  Experiences  of  Thomas  Jones,  who  was  for  forty-three  years 
a  Slave.  Boston,  1850. 

Frothingham,  O.  B.  Life  of  Gerrit  Smith.  A  Biography.  New  York,  1878. 
pp.  381. 

Fugitive  Slave  Bill  enacted  by   U.  S.  Congress,  and   approved   by   President 
Fillmore,  Sept.  8,  1850.     Boston,  1854.     pp.  7. 
V    Fugitive  Slaves.     In  Democratic  Review,  XXVIII.  57  (April,  1851). 

Furness,  W.  H.  The  Moving  Power.  A  Discourse  delivered  in  the  First  Con 
gregational  Unitarian  Church  in  Philadelphia,  Feb.  9,  1851,  after  the  occurrence  of  a 
Fugitive  Slave  Case.  Philadelphia,  1851. 

Garrison,  Wendell  Phillips,  and  Garrison,  Francis  Jackson.  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  1805-1879:  the  Story  of  his  Life,  told  by  his  Children  [Wendell  Phil 
lips  Garrison  and  Francis  Jackson  Garrison].  4  vols.,  Svo.  New  York,  1885. 

Giddings,  J.  R.  The  Exiles  of  Florida,  or  Crimes  committed  by  our  Government 
against  Maroons  who  fled  from  South  Carolina,  etc.  Columbus,  O.,  1858. 

Goodell,  William.  Views  of  American  Constitutional  Law  in  its  Bearings  upon 
American  Slavery.  2d  ed.  Utica,  N.  Y.,  1845. 

Goodloe,  D.  R.  The  Southern  Platform,  or  Manual  of  Southern  Sentiments  on 
the  Subject  of  Slavery.  Boston,  1858. 

Gray,  A.  F.  (?)  Letter  to  W.  H.  Seward  touching  the  Surrender  of  certain 
Fugitives  from  Justice.  New  York,  1841. 

Great  Britain.  British  Documents,  Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  Correspondence 
respecting  Case  of  Fugitive  Slave  Anderson.  London,  1861. 

Greeley,  Horace.  The  American  Conflict;  a  History  of  the  Great  Rebellion, 
1860-65  ;  its  moral  and  political  Phases,  with  the  Drift  and  Progress  of  America  re 
specting  Human  Slavery  from  1776.  2  vols.,  Svo.  Hartford,  1864. 


134  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Bibliography.  [APP.  E. 

Green,  William  (formerly  a  slave),  Narrative  of  Events  in  the  Life  of.  Written 
by  himself.  Springfield,  1853.  pp.  23. 

Hawkins,  W.  G.  Lunsford  Lane,  or  Another  Helper  from  North  Carolina. 
Boston,  1863. 

Helper,  H.  R.  The  Impending  Crisis  in  the  South,  and  How  to  Meet  it.  New 
York,  1860.  pp.  420. 

Henson,  Josiah.  Life  of  J.  Henson,  formerly  a  Slave,  now  an  Inhabitant  of 
Canada,  as  narrated  by  himself. 

Hildreth,  R.     The  Slave,  or  Memoirs  of  Archy  Moore.     Boston,  1840 

Hopper,  I.  T.     Thomas  Cooper.     New  York,  1837. 

Hossack,  John.  Speech  of  John  Hossack,  convicted  of  Violation  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  before  Judge  Drummond  of  the  United  States  District  Court,  Chicago, 
111.  New  York,  1860.  pp.  12. 

Howe,  S.  G.  Refugees  from  the  South  in  Canada  West.  Report  to  Freedman's 
Inquiry  Committee.  Boston,  1864. 

Kurd,  J.  C.     The  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage.     2  vols.    New  York,  1858,  1862. 

.  Topics  of  Jurisprudence  connected  with  the  Condition  of  Freedom  and 

Bondage.  New  York,  1856.  pp.  ix,  113. 

Hurd,  R.  C.  Treatise  on  the  Right  of  Personal  Liberty,  and  on  the  Writ  of 
Habeas  Corpus,  and  Practice  connected  with  it,  with  a  View  of  the  Law  of  Extra 
dition  of  Fugitives.  Albany,  1858. 

Joliffe,  John.  In  the  Matter  of  George  Gordon's  Petition  for  Pardon.  John 
Joliffe's  Argument  for  Petitioner.  Cincinnati,  1862. 

Kane,  Judge.  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Pennsylvania.  United  States  of  America,  ex  relatione  Wheeler,  vs.  Williamson. 
Opinion  of  Judge  Kane,  Oct.  12,  1855.  Philadelphia,  1855.  pp.  20. 

Kemble,  Frances  Anne.  Journal  of  a  Residence  on  a  Georgian  Plantation  in 
1836-39.  New  York,  1863. 

Kent,  J.     Commentaries  on  American  Law.     4  vols.     Boston,  1884. 

Kidnapping.     African  Observer,  May,  1837. 

Kingsbury,  Harmon.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  its  History  and  Unconstitu-: 
tionality:  with  an  Account  of  the  Seizure  and  Enslavement  of  James  Hamlet  and  his 
subsequent  Restoration  to  Liberty  (with  Appendix).  New  York,  1850. 

Larned,  E.  C.  Argument  on  the  Trial  of  Joseph  Stout,  indicted  for  rescuing  a 
Fugitive  Slave  from  a  United  States  Deputy  Marshal  at  Ottawa,  111.^  Oct.  20,  1859, 
delivered  March  12  and  13,  186-.  Chicago,  186-.  pp.  43. 

.  The  new  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  Speech  of  E.  C.  Larned,  Chicago,  Oct.  25, 

1850.  Chicago,  1850. 

Latimer  Case.     From  the  Law  Reporter,  March,  1843.     Boston,  1843.     PP-  IO- 

Letter  to  His  Excellency,  William  H.  Seward,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
touching  the  Surrender  of  certain  Fugitives  from  Justice.  New  York,  1841.  pp.  101. 

Lord,  J.  C.  The  Higher  Law  in  its  Application  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill. 
Buffalo,  1851. 

Madison,  James.     The  Constitution  a  Pro-slavery  Compact.     New  York,  1844. 

Mann,  Horace.     Fugitive  Slave  Law.     Boston,  1851. 

Massachusetts  Senate.  Various  Documents.  Senate,  1851,  No.  89  (examina 
tion  of  Sims  Case). 

May,  S.  J.  American  Antislavery  Society.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  its 
Victims.  New  York,  1856,  1861. 

.     Catalogue  of  Antislavery  Publications  in  America,  1750-1830. 

Moore,  G.  H.  Notes  on  the  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts.  New  York, 
1866. 


No.  13.]  Alphabetical  List.  135 

Narrative  of  Facts  in  the  Case  of  Passmore  Williamson.     Philadelphia,  1855. 

Narrative  of  Solomon  Northrup,  a  Citizen  of  New  York,  kidnapped  in  Wash 
ington  in  1844,  and  rescued  in  1853  fr°m  a  Cotton  Plantation  near  Red  River,  Lou 
isiana.  Cincinnati,  H.  W.  Derby. 

Needles,  Edward.  Historical  Memoir  of  the  Pennsylvania  Society  for  Promoting 
the  Abolition  of  Slavery.  Philadelphia,  1848. 

New  York  Court  of  Appeals,  Report  of  the  Lemmon  Slave  Case.  New  York, 
1 86 1.  pp.  446. 

New  York  Legal  Observer,  Supplement  to,  containing  Report  of  the  Case  In 
the  Matter  of  George  Kirk,  a  Fugitive  Slave,  heard  before  J.  W.  Edmunds,  Circuit 
Judge ;  also  the  Argument  of  John  Jay,  Counsel  for  the  Slave.  New  York,  1844. 
pp.  20. 

Oberlin-Wellington  Rescue.     New  Englander,  XVII.  686. 

Olmsted,  F.   L.     The  Cotton  Kingdom.     2  vols.     New  York,  1861. 

Paine,  Byron,  and  Smith,  A.  D.  Unconstitutionally  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 
Argument  of  A.  D.  Smith.  Milwaukee,  1854.  pp.  35. 

Paine,  L.  W.  Six  Years  in  a  Georgia  Prison.  Narrative  of  L.  W.  Paine,  who 
suffered  Imprisonment  for  aiding  Slaves  to  escape  from  that  State  after  he  had  fled 
from  Slavery.  Boston,  1852. 

Parker,  Joel.  Personal  Liberty  Laws  (State  of  Massachusetts)  and  Slavery  in 
the  Territories  (Case  of  Dred  Scott).  Boston,  1861.  pp.  97. 

Parker,  Theodore.  Anthony  Burns.  [Collection  made  and  arranged  in  the  form 
of  a  scrap-book  by  Theodore  Parker,  whose  Autograph  and  Manuscript  it  contains.] 
Boston  Public  Library. 

Peabody,  Andrew  Preston.  [Address  before  the  New  England  Historic- 
Genealogical  Society,  May  6,  1891.] 

Peabody,  E.     Narratives  of  Fugitive  Slaves.     Christian  Examiner,  XLVII.  61. 

Phillips,  Wendell.  Argument  of  Wendell  Phillips,  Esq.,  against  Repeal  of  the 
Personal  Liberty  Laws  before  the  Committee  of  the  Legislature,  Tuesday,  January  29, 
1861.  Boston,  1861. 

.     No  Slave  Hunting  in  the  Old  Bay  State,  before  Committee  on  Federal 

Relations,  H.  R.,  Thursday,  Feb.  17,  1859.     Boston,  1859. 

.     Speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Massachusetts  before  the 

Committee  on  Federal  Relations  [against  the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves].     Boston, 

1859 

Pickard,  Mrs.  K.  E.  R.  The  Kidnapped  and  the  Ransomed.  Personal  Reflec 
tions  of  Peter  Still  and  his  Wife  Vina  after  Forty  Years  of  Slavery.  Syracuse,  New 
York,  1856. 

Pierce,  E.  L.  Remarks  of  E.  L.  Pierce  before  the  Committee  of  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts  on  the  General  Statutes  relating  to  Personal  Liberty,  at  their  Hearing 
of  Feb.  i,  1861.  Boston,  1861. 

Pomeroy,  J.  N.  An  Introduction  to  the  Constitutional  Laws  of  the  United  States. 
Boston,  1868. 

Poole,  W.  F.  Sketch  of  Antislavery  Opinion  before  Year  1800.  An  Essay  read 
before  the  Cincinnati  Literary  Club,  Nov.  16,  1872.  Cincinnati,  1873. 

Randolph,  Peter,  an  emancipated  slave.  Sketches  of  Slave  Life.  Boston,  1855. 
pp.  82. 

Rantoul,  Robert.  Speech  at  Lynn,  April  3,  1852,  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 
Speech  in  Congress  on  June  n,  1852,  on  the  Constitutionality  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law. 

Rendition  of  Fugitive  Slaves.  Acts  of  1793  and  1850,  and  Decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  sustaining  them.  The  Dred  Scott  Case.  1860.  pp.  15. 


136  Fugitive  Slaves:  —  Bibliography.  [App.  E. 

Refugees'  Home  Society,  Report  of  Committee.     Winsor,  1852.     pp.  8. 
Report  of  the  Trial  of  Castner   Hanway  for  Treason,  etc.     Philadelphia,  1852. 
pp.  275. 

Report  of  the  Case  of  Edward  Prigg  against  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania 
in  Superior  Court.     Philadelphia,  1842. 

Roper,  Moses,  Narrative  of  the  Adventures  and  Escape  of,  from  American  Slavery. 
Philadelphia,  1838.     pp.  89. 

Sergeant,  Thomas.     On  Constitutional  Law.     Philadelphia,  1830. 
Seward,  W.  H.     John  Van  Zandt,   etc.,   Argument  for   Defendant   by   W.  H. 
Seward.     Albany,  1847.     PP-  4°- 

Sherman,  H.     Slavery  in  the  United  States  ;  from  the  Establishment  of  the  Con 
federation  to  the  present  Time.     Hartford,  1860.     pp.  60. 

Shipherd,  J.  R.     History  of  Oberlin-Wellington  Rescue.     Boston,  1859. 
Smedley,  R.  C.,  M.  D.     History  of  the  Underground  Railroad  in  Chester  and 
neighboring  Counties  of  Pennsylvania.     Lancaster,  Pa.,  1883.     pp.  395. 

Smith,  Gerrit.     Argument  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  June,  1852,  on  the  Trial  of 
H.  W.  Allen  for  Kidnapping.     Syracuse,     pp.  32.     No  date. 

South  Bend  Fugitive  Slave  Case,  The.     (John  Ames  vs.  L.  B.   Newton.) 
New  York.     pp.  24. 

Spooiier,   L.     A  Defence  for  Fugitive  Slaves  against  the  Acts  of  Congress  of  Feb. 
12,  1793,  and  Sept.  18,  1850.     Boston,  1850.     Pam. 

Stearns,  Charles.     Narrative  of  Henry  Box  Brown,  who  escaped  from  Slavery 
enclosed  in  a  Box  three  feet  long  and  two  wide.     Boston,  1849. 

Stearns,  Charles.     The  "  Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  the  United  States." 
Stevens,  C.  E.     Anthony  Burns  (a  Fugitive  Slave).     A  Plistory.     Boston,  1856. 
Still,  W.     The  Underground  Railroad.     Philadelphia,  1872. 

Stroud,  G.  M.     Sketch  of  Laws  relative  to  Slavery  in  the  several  States  of  the 
United  States  of  America.     Philadelphia,  1827.     pp.  128. 

Sumner,  Charles.     Fugitive  Slaves.     Brownson,  XI.  487  (October,  1854). 
Tappaii,  Arthur.     The  Life  of.     New  York,  1870. 

Thomas,  B.  F.  A  few  Suggestions  to  a  Friend  upon  Personal  Liberty  Laws  and 
Secession  (so  called),  in  a  Letter  to  a  Friend.  Boston,  1861. 

Thompson,  George.  Prison  Life  and  Reflections,  Narrative  of  Trial,  Imprison 
ment,  etc.  of  Work,  Burr,  and  Thompson  for  aiding  Slaves  to  Liberty.  Hartford,  1849. 

•     The    Negroes'    Flight   from    American    Slavery   to    British    Freedom. 

1849.     PP-  1 6. 

Watson,  Henry.  Narrative  of  Henry  Watson,  a  Fugitive  Slave.  Written  by 
himself.  Boston,  1848.  pp.  48. 

Weld,  S.  D.  American  Slavery  as  it  is  :  Testimony  of  Thousands  of  Witnesses. 
New  York,  1839. 

Wesley,  Rev.  J.  The  Rev.  J.  W.  Loguen  as  a  Slave  and  as  a  Freeman.  Syra 
cuse,  New  York,  1859. 

Weston,  G.  M.     Progress  of  Slavery  in  the  United  States.     Washington,  1857. 
•v-White  Slave,  The  :  Or  Memoirs  of  a  Fugitive.     Boston,  1852.     pp.  408. 

Whittier,  John  G.  The  Writings  of  John  G.  Whittier.  Boston,  1888-89.  7  vols. 
I2mo. 

Wigham,  E.     Antislavery  Cause  in  America  and  its  Martyrs.     London,  1863. 

Wilcox,  A.  The  Powers  of  the  Federal  Government  over  Slavery.  Baltimore, 
1862.  pp.  23. 

Willey,  Rev.  Austin.  History  of  the  Antislavery  Cause  in  State  and  Nation. 
Portland,  1886.  pp.  xii,  503. 


No.  13.]  Alphabetical  List.  137 

"Wilson,  Henry.  History  of  the  Antislavery  Measures  in  the  37th  and  38th  United 
States  Congresses.  Boston,  1865. 

: — .  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America.  3  vols. 

Boston,  1875-1877. 

"Williams,  George  W.  History  of  the  Negro  Race  in  America.  2  vols.  New 
York,  1883. 

Wisconsin  Supreme  Court.  Unconstitutionality  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 
Decision  in  Case  of  Booth  and  Bycraft.  Milwaukee,  1855. 


INDEX, 


ABOLITION,  in  the  D.  C.,  82,  98,  121 
(No.  62),  122  (No.  65);  of  the  slave 
trade  in  the  D.  C.,  25.  See  also  Anti- 
slavery,  Emancipation. 

Abolitionists,  known  to  slaves,  53;  efforts 
on  the  Underground  Railroad,  64.  See 
also  Antislavery. 

Acorn,  ship,  44. 

Act,  first  fugitive  slave,  105,  106  (No.  9)  ; 
second  fugitive  slave,  112-115  (No.  31)  ; 


Grimes,  120  (No.  51)  ;  Blair,  121  (No. 
58);  repealing  fugitive  slave  act,  123 
(No.  83).  See  also  Bill. 

Adams,  ,  against  fugitive  slave  bill, 

21. 

Adams,  J.  Q.,  in  Treaty  of  Ghent  Con 
vention,  25  ;  presented  petitions,  40. 

Advertisement,  of  runaways,  4;  colonial, 
5  ;  later,  56,  80  ;  of  probable  place  of 
refuge  of  an  habitual  runaway,  57. 

Albany,  escapes  from,  8,  97,  98  (No.  50). 

Aldrich,  amendment,  121  (No.  58). 

Alexander,  Archer,  128  (No.  69). 

Alien  and  Sedition  Acts,  absorb  attention, 
20. 

Allen,   Henry  W.,  tried  for  kidnapping, 

49- 

Amendments  to  the  Constitution,  86,  87. 
Amsterdam,  banishes  runaway  colonists, 

92  (No.  15). 

Anderson  case,  25,  26,  128  (No.  65). 
Antislavery  men,  biographies  of,  132  (No. 

4)- 

Antislavery  reminiscences,  131  (No.  9). 
Antislavery  sentiment,  rise  of,  35. 
Antislavery   societies,  character  of  work, 

38  ;  reports  of,  131  (No.  10). 
Apprentices,  fugitive,  91  (No.  9),  95  (No. 

39). 

Arbitration,  in  Creole  case,  27. 
Army  officers,  arrests  by,  79. 

d39) 


Arrest,  negro  liable  to,  55 ;  by  army  offi 
cers,  79. 

Articles  of  Confederation,  fugitive  slave 
clause  in,  7,  13,  91  (No.  8). 

Articles  of  war,  resolution  on,  120  (No. 
47) ;  bill  for  an  additional,  79. 

Artis,  Jordan,  advertisement  of,  56. 

Ashley,  repeal  bill,  83,  123  (No.  80). 

Athenaeum,  Boston,  129  (No.  2). 

Attorneys,  to  defend  fugitives,  66 ;  for 
bidden  to  act,  69. 

Attucks,  Crispus,  escape  of,  5,  124  (No. 
6). 


BADGER,  on  fugitive  slave  bill,  32. 

Bahamas,  treatment  of  fugitives  in,  24, 
26. 

Bass,  aids  S.  Northrup,  37. 

Batchekler,  James,  death  of,  46. 

Bath,  escape  from,  127  (No.  56). 

Bell,  Governor.     See  Ohio. 

Benton  Resolution,  109  (No.  24). 

Bermudas,  treatment  of  fugitives  in,   26. 

Bill,  for  a  new  fugitive  slave  law,  re 
ported,  17-21,  24;  28-29  5  character  of, 
1802,  19,  20;  principles  of,  1818,  20-21 ; 
for  amending,  21-22  ;  on  Maryland  reso 
lutions,  24;  Douglas's,  118  (No.  17); 
Lovejoy's,  119  (No.  35),  122  (No.  66); 
Wilson's,  120  (Nos.  42,  48),  122  (Nos. 
54,  56)  ;  Howe's,  120  (No.  49) ;  Davis's 
1 20  (No.  50),  121  (No.  57)  ;  confisca 
tion,  122  (Nos.  68,  72,  73,  79) ;  abolition, 
121,  122  (Nos.  62,  65)  ;  Harris's,  121 
(No.  59),  122  (Nos.  67,  71)  ;  Clarke's, 
122  (No.  72);  Julian's,  120  (No.  45), 
122  (No.  76) ;  emancipation,  122  (Nos. 
73,  75),  122,  123  (No.  78);  repeal,  123 
(No.  80)  ;  Stevens's,  i2^(  No.  So) ;  Ash 
ley's,  123  (No.  80)  ;  Sumner's,  123 
(Nos.  80, 83)  ;  Spalding's,  123  (No.  80) ; 


140 


Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Index. 


House  substitute,  123  (No.  83).  See 
a]so  Acts. 

Bingham, ,  on  Blair  bill,  79,  80 ;  res 
olutions,  Si,  119  (No.  39) ;  amendments, 
121  (No.  58),  122  (No.  67). 

Black  Code,  in  the  D.  C.,  resolution  on, 
119  (No.  33);  bill  to  repeal,  121  (No. 
56). 

Blair, ,  bill,  79,  80;  Act,  121  (No.  58). 

Blake, ,  introduces  repeal  bill,  73. 

Boston  massacre,  Attucks  killed  in,  5,  6. 

Boston,  schooner,  case  of,  41,  125  (No. 
21). 

Boucher,  Rev.  John,  on  Washington's 
education,  2. 

Bound  servants,  escape  from  Virginia,  9. 

Bourne, ,  appointed  on  committee,  17. 

Bowditch,  H.  I.     See  Latimer  Journal. 

Boyle,  ,  Brigadier  General  in  Sher 
wood  case,  78. 

Bright,  ,  Explanatory  Bill,  116  (No. 

34). 

Brown,  on  repeal  bill,  86. 
Brown,  John,   in   Missouri    and   Kansas, 

51  ;  plan  of,  51 ;  effect  of  raid,  84  ;  case, 

128  (No.  63). 
Brown,  Mary,  demands  arrest  of  Hamlet, 

43'  44- 

Browne,  William,  story  of  escapes,  9. 
Browne,  William,  a  runaway,  57. 
Buchanan,  James,  presidential  message  of, 

72,  117  (No.  i). 

Burnett,   Governor,   conference   with    In 
dians,  demands  slave,  8. 
Burns,  Anthony,  arrest  and  trial,  45,  55, 

127  ;  use  of  court  house  in  his  case,  68, 

(No.  57). 
Butler, ,  proposition  on  fugitive  slave 

clause,  14;    on  fugitive    slave  bill,   32; 

reports    fugitive   slave    bill,    no    (No. 

30). 
Butler,  General  B.  F.,  on  "  contrabands," 

74- 

CALHOUN,    Resolution,   27,  108  (No. 

20). 

California,  sanctions  rendition,  67. 
Calvert,  appointed   on   committee,   made 

chairman,  17. 
Cape  May,  escapes  to,  124  (No.  3). 


Carlisle,  fugitive  slave  case  in,  39. 

Cases,  legal,  change  in  character  of,  34; 
classification  of,  35  ;  principle  of  selec 
tion  of,  43. 

Certificate,  evidence  for  conviction,  7. 

Chandler,  Zachary,  introduces  confiscation 
bill,  75  ;  confiscation  act,  119  (No.  31). 

Chase,  S.  P.,  on  fugitive  slave  law,  32  ;  on 
payments  under  law  of  1850,  n6(No. 
38)  ;  offers  amendments,  in  (No.  30). 

Cherokees.     See  Treaty. 

Chickasaws.     See  Treaty. 

Chickasaw  case,  38,  39,  125  (No.  20). 

Christiana  case,  50,  51,  127  (No.  49) ;  influ 
ence  traced,  50,  51. 

Choctaws.     See  Treaty. 

Clarence, ,  joint  resolution,  118  (No. 

23)- 

Clark, ,  reports  confiscation  bill,  76; 

substitute,  77;  resolution,  119  (No.  34)  ; 
amendments,  120  (No. 51) ;  122, 123  (No. 
78)  ;  confiscation  bill,  122  (No.  72). 

Clarke,  J.  F.,  quoted,  43,  46,  58,  62. 

Clay,  Henry,  see  Gallatin,  provision  on 
fugitives,  30;  on  Shadrach  case,  48,  115 
(No.  33) ;  amendment,  in  (No.  30). 

Cochrane,  joint  resolution,  117  (No.  2). 

Colfax,  Schuyler,  resolution,  122  (No.  77). 

Collamer,  ,  amendments,  121  (No. 

53);  122  (No.  67). 

Colonial  regulation,  began  early,  2  j  cases, 
1-12  ;  legislation,  89-103. 

Colonists,  runaway,  92  (No.  15). 

Colony,  of  fugitives,  57. 

Columbia,  case  in,  125  (No.  15). 

Comet  case,  26. 

Commissioners,  of  United  Colonies,  com 
plain  of  fugitives,  10  ;  duty  of,  31. 

Committee,  for  a  new  fugitive  slave  law, 
17  ;  on  the  fugitive  slave  law,  17-23,  27  ; 
on  Maryland  resolution,  24  ;  to  prevent 
outrages,  41  ;  conference,  77  ;  amend 
ments  by,  119  (No.  31),  120  (Nos.  48, 
51);  on  judiciary,  instructed,  29;  re 
port  a  fugitive  slave  law,  29. 

Compromise,  resolution  affirming,  116 
(No.  35)  ;  fugitive  slave  act,  118  (No. 

25). 

Conferences,  between  Indians  and  the 
Governor  of  New  York,  8. 


BingJiam 


Confiscation,  of  slaves  of  rebels,  74;  re 
port  on,  121  (No.  60);  bill,  75,  76; 
amendments,  75  ;  provisions  extended, 
75,  76;  presented,  75,  76;  act  approved 
by  President,  77  ;  Trumbull's,  119  (Nos. 
30,  37),  120  (No.  52);  Chandler's,  119 
(No.  31)  ;  Davis's,  120  (No.  50)  ; 
coupled  with  emancipation,  120  (No. 
44),  122  (Nos.  69,  73);  amendments  to, 
121,  (No.  57),  123  (Nos.  67,  71); 
Harris's,  121,  122  (Nos.  59,  63,  67, 
71) ;  Clark's,  122  (No.  72) ;  progress  of, 
123  (No.  79) ;  Merrill's  joint  resolution, 
119  (No.  40). 

Congress,  action  of,  from  1847  *°  1850,  28, 
29. 

Connecticut,  legislation  in,  4  ;  in  the 
New  England  confederation,  7  ;  offers 
reward,  8 ;  emancipation  in,  13  ;  Per 
sonal  Liberty  Lav/s  in,  65,  66,  69; 
servants  in,  91  (No.  9)  ;  against  runa 
ways,  100  (No.  67),  103  (Nos.  78, 

79). 

Constitution,  fugitive  slave  clause  in,  16, 
105  (No.  7);  defended  slavery,  16; 
amendments  proposed,  118  (No.  22). 

Constitutional  Convention,  fugitive  ques 
tion  in,  14,  15. 

Contrabands,  origin  of  term,  74. 

Convention,  in  Treaty  of  Ghent,  25.  See 
also  Constitutional  Convention. 

Conviction  of  a  fugitive,  evidence  neces 
sary,  18,  19. 

Cooledge,  N.,  in  Latimer  case,  39. 

Court,  Commissioners,  how  chosen,  30. 
See  also  Conviction,  Trials. 

Court-house  assaulted,  49,  58. 

Cowden,  Colonel,  in  Wisdom  case,  78. 

Cox, ,  resolution,  117  (No.  5)  ;  on  re 
peal  bill,  84. 

Crafts,  William  and  Lucy,  escape  of,  59, 
60,  126  (No.  41). 

Creek  Indians,  escapes  to,  8 ;  treaty  with, 
24;  restoration  clause  in  treaty,  106 
(No.  ir). 

Creole,  case  of,  27. 

Crittenden,  joint  resolution,  118  (Nos.  13, 
24). 

Curtis,  Commissioner,  44. 

Curtis,  Judge,  trial  of,  46. 


DAGGET  amendment,  20,  107  (No.  14)- 

Dana,  R.  H.,  defends  Burns,  46. 

Daniel,  offered  for  sale,  57. 

Davis,  amendment,  in  (No.  30)  ;  bill,  120 
(No.  50)  ;  substitute  bill,  121  (No.  57)  ; 
amendments,  121  (No  58). 

Davis,  Charles  G.,  in  Shadrach  case,  47 
48. 

Dayton  amendment,  in  (No.  30). 

Debate,  on  fugitive  slave  clause  in  the 
constitution,  14,  15;  on  fugitive  slave 
bill,  17-20;  on  the  slave  trade,  20;  on 
the  fugitive  slave  act,  20,  22  ;  on  the  ad 
mission  of  Missouri,  23 ;  on  slavery  in 
the  D.  C.,  29;  on  the  fugitive  slave 
law  of  1850,  31-33. 

De  Bere,  John,  in  Shadrach  case,  47. 

Delaware,  regulation  of  servants  and 
slaves,  101  (No.  70). 

Delavvares,  fugitive  slave  clause  in  treaty, 
104  (No.  i). 

Diggs,  S.  T.  P.,  in  Anderson  case,  26. 

Dismal  Swamp,  refuge  for  fugitive,  57. 

District  of  Columbia,  slavery  in,  29  ;  re 
peal  of  jail  laws  in,  80,  82  ;  Grimes's  bill, 
81,  82;  debate  on  abolition  of  slavery 
in,  82;  resolution  on  repeal  of  the 
Black  Code  in,  119  (No.  33);  bill  for 
emancipation  in,  120  (No.  42) ;  act  on 
criminal  justice  in,  120  (No.  51);  bill, 
121  (No.  54)  ;  bill  to  repeal  Black  Code 
in,  121  (No.  56) ;  bill  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in,  121,  122  (Nos.  62,  65). 

Drayton, ,  Captain,  aids  fugitives,  42. 

Drayton  and  Sayres,  case  of,  42;  126 
(No  40). 

Douglass,  Frederick,  method  of  escape, 
58,  64,  125  (No.  23). 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  joint  resolution,  118 
(No.  14). 

Dutch  Colonies,  along  the  coast,  i  ;  regu 
lations  on  fugitives,  2,  4  ;  legislation  in, 
6.  See  also  New  Amsterdam,  New 
Netherlands. 

EAST  JERSEY,  against  fugitives,  2,  3, 
95,96  (No.  41);  against  runaways,  96 
(No.  45). 

Eldridge,  Captain,  of  brig  Chickasaw, 
33,  39- 


142 


Fugitive  Slaves :  —  Index. 


Eliot,  ,   introduces   confiscation  bill, 

76;  bill,   122  (No.  69);  substitute  bill, 

122    (No.    78). 

Elton,  Governor,  action  in  fugitive  slave 
case,  10. 

Emancipation,  in  Great  Britain,  26 ;  reso 
lutions  on,  76;  in  the  District  of  Co 
lumbia,  120  (No.  42);  bill,  122  (No. 
75)  ;  coupled  with  confiscation,  120 
(No.  44);  122  (Nos.  69,  73);  of  fugi 
tives  from  disloyal  masters,  bill  for,  122 
(No.  78). 

Emancipation  proclamation,  effect  of,  as  a 
war  measure,  77. 

Encomium,  case  of,  24. 

England.     See  Great  Britain. 

English, ,  joint  resolution,  117  (No.  8). 

English  colonies,  i.     See  Colonies. 

Enterprise,  case  of,  24. 

Escape,  by  ferries,  4,  5  ;  methods  of  in 
vestigation  of,  53;  methods  of,  53;  mo 
tives  for,  54 ;  to  the  woods,  56,  57  ;  to 
the  North,  57  ;  by  laundry  work,  58  ;  by 
coach,  58,  59;  by  passports,  63,  75; 
general  effect  of,  64  ;  from  English  to 
French,  124  (No.  5).  See  also  Fugi 
tives,  Runaways. 

Extradition,  no  system  of,  in  the  colo 
nies,  9. 

FALSE  TESTIMONY,  punished,  70. 
Faneuil  Hall,  mass   meetings   in,  40,  45, 

55- 

Fee,  of  commissioners,  30. 

Felons,  runaway  apprentices,  90  (No.  4). 

Felony,  when  guilty  of,  69. 

Ferries,  escapes  by,  4,  5. 

Fessenden,  — : — ,  requests  investigation  of 
the  District  of  Columbia  jail,  Si,  119 
(No.  38). 

Fitch, ,  resolutions  affirming  the  Com 
promise,  116  (No.  35). 

Florence, ,  joint  resolutions,  n8(Nos. 

15,  18). 

Florida,  escapes  to,  8  ;  Seminole  trouble 
in,  25. 

Fortress  Monroe,  contrabands  at,  74. 

French  colonies,  interval  of  unpopulated 
country  south,  i ;  refuse  to  return  fugi 
tives,  ii. 


Free  negroes,  penalty  for  harboring  fugi 
tives,  4  ;  condition  of,  27. 

Free  States,  difficulty  of  transporting 
slaves  across,  36. 

Friendship,  ship,  case  of,  6,  126  (No. 
10). 

Frontiers,  places  of  refuge,  25. 

Fugitive  apprentices,  act  applies  to,  18. 
See  also  servants. 

Fugitives,  evidence  to  convict,  19;  status 
on  the  high  seas,  26;  penalty  for  harbor 
ing,  31,  103  (No.  So)  ;  pursuit  interfered 
with,  38 ;  length  of  journeys,  57,  58  ; 
disguised  as  whites,  58,  59;  how  con 
ducted  on  the  underground  railroad, 
61  ;  in  loyal  slave  states,  77,  78  ;  typical 
cases  of,  during  the  war,  78  ;  arrests  of, 
by  civil  officers,  advertisement  of,  80  ; 
entertainment  of,  90  (No.  6)  ;  against, 
91  (Nos.  ir,  12);  resolution  for  the 
discharge  of,  119  (No.  32);  bill  to  pre 
vent  return  of,  119  (No.  35)  ;  resolution 
against  the  return  of,  120  (Nos.  43,  46)  ; 
bill  on  the  arrest  of,  by  army  and  navy 
officers,  120  (No.  48)  ;  act  to  prohibit 
return  by  the  army,  121  (No.  58);  reso 
lution  on  the  return  of,  by  the  army  and 
navy,  bill  on  the  return  of,  by  the  army, 
resolution  demanding  trial  by  jury  for, 
121,  122  (Nos.  61,  66,  77)  J  bill  for 
the  emancipation  of  fugitives  from  dis 
loyal  masters,  122,  123  (No.  78).  See 
also  Runaways,  Escapes  ;  see  Table  of 
Contents. 

Fugitive  Slaves,  appeal  for,  19  ;  status  of 
question  from  1823  to  1847,  22»  25  \  res 
olutions  on,  78  ;  question  discussed,  78, 
79 ;  arrest  by  army  officers,  79 ;  reso 
lutions  on  the  return  of,  resolution  on 
army  orders  on.  119  (Nos.  28,  36) ;  res 
olution  on,  122  (No.  74)  ;  sources  of  in 
formation  on,  general  histories  of,  129 
(Nos.  i,  3)  ;  secondary  sources  of  infor 
mation  on,  original  sources  of  informa 
tion  on,  autobiographies  of,  records  of 
trials  of,  periodicals  and  newspapers 
upon,  129-131  (Nos.  3,  5,  6,  7,  n)  ;  ma 
terials  for  study  of  legislation  upon,  131, 
132  (No.  12).  See  also  Escapes,  Fugit 
ives,  Runaways,  and  Table  of  Contents. 


Eliot  —  Harris. 


143 


Fugitive  Slave  Act,  first  (1793),  l6>  T75 
first  called  for,  17;  necessity  of  the  act, 
17 ;  passed  the  Senate,  passed  the 
House,  17  ;  signed  by  the  President, 
18  ;  text,  105,  1 06  (No.  9)  ;  followed 
earlier  examples,  17,  18  ;  status  of 
opinion  on,  17,  18  ;  remained  inoper 
ative,  16,  17;  to  enforce  the,  no  (No. 
29). 

Fugitive  Slave  Act,  second  (1850),  at 
tempts  to  secure,  21,  24;  secured,  29, 
30;  introduced  by  Mason,  29,  no 
(No.  30);  Webster  proposes,  in  (No. 
30);  substitute  offered,  in  (No.  30); 
passed  Congress,  29,  30  ;  necessity  of, 
urged,  31  ;  arguments  for,  31,  32  ;  argu 
ments  against,  32,  33  ;  provisions  of,  30, 
31  ;  text  of,  112  (No.  31)  ;  unpopularity 
of,  43,  51  ;  no  moral  foundation,  43  ; 
declared  unconstitutional,  71  ;  non-exe 
cution  of,  72  ;  resolution  to  amend,  120 
(No.  45). 

Fugitive  Slave  Acts  repealed  (1864),  re 
peal  urged,  72  ;  status  of,  83  ;  early  prop 
ositions,  83;  discussion,  83  ;  repeal  bill, 
83 ;  passed,  85  ;  repeal  bill  discussed, 
84-^6;  bilTto  amend,  118  (No.  25);  re 
peal  bills,  120  (No.  49),  122  (No.  76), 
126  (Nos.  80,  82)  ;  repeal  bill  passes, 
86  ;  text  of,  86,  87  ;  124  (No.  83). 
Fugitive  Slave  Bill  of  1818,  passed  the 
House,  20-22 ;  title  of,  22  ;  failure  in 
the  Senate,  23. 

Fugitive  Slave  Cases.  See  Table  of  Con 
tents. 

Fugitive  Slave  Clause,  in  the  New  Eng 
land  Articles  of  Confederation,  7  ;  in  the 
Constitution,    14-16;    in  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent,  24,  106  (No.  12). 
Fugitive    Slave    Controversy,    educating 

effect  of,  recapitulation  of,  87,  88. 
Fugitive  Slave  Legislation,  opposed  by 
Northern  States,  28  ;  inadequacy  of, 
proved,  28;  necessity  of  more  stringent, 
26,  28 ;  proposition  for  new,  29 ;  must 
be  carried  out,  42  ;  new  element  in,  66; 
in  1860,  71 ;  resistance  to,  declared  felo 
ny,  72,  73  ;  propositions  to  repeal  or 
amend,  73 ;  after  emancipation  procla 
mation,  77. 


GALLATIN,  ALBERT,  in  Treaty  of 

Ghent,  25. 

Gannett,  case  of,  126  (No.  44). 
Gansey,  Isaac,  case  of,  125  (No.  24). 
"  Gap  Gang,"  aid  kidnappers,  50. 
Gardiner, ,  commissioner  in  Hamlet 

case,  43,  44. 

Garner,  Margaret,  flight  and  seizure,  47. 
Garner,  Robert,  flight  and  seizure,  47. 
Garner,    Simeon,  flight   and  seizure,  47 ; 

case  128  (No.  58). 
Garrett,   Thomas,   trial  and  fine,  reward 

offered  for,  63. 
Gatchell  case,  128  (No.  61). 
Georgia,  difficulty  in  recovery  of  fugitives 

in,  8;  Governor  of,  demands  fugitives 

from  justice,  41. 
Gibson  case,  126  (No.  45). 
Giddings  resolution,  29,  109  (Nos.  23,  25)  ; 

resolution,  no  (Nos.  27,  28). 
Glasgow,  freedom  case  in,  12,   124  (No. 

7)- 

Glocester,  given  jurisdiction  over  run 
aways,  93  (No  24).' 

Glover  case,  127  (No.  55). 

Coin  case,  126  (No.  29). 

Gorsuch,  Edward,  claims  a  fugitive,  50. 

Grahame,  Thomas,  in  freedom  case,  12. 

Grayson,  ,  on  fugitive  slave  clause, 

J5- 

Great  Britain,  status  of  fugitives  in,  u,  12  ; 
diplomatic  relations,  n,  12;  encourage 
ment  of  fugitives,  24,  25  ;  pays  indem 
nity,  26.  See  also  England. 

Great  Dismal  Swamp,  refuge  for  run 
aways,  57. 

Grey,  James  B.,  demands  a  fugitive,  39. 

Grimes,  criminal  justice  bill,  81  ;  act,  120 
(No.  51)  ;  amendments,  121  (No. 64),  122 
(No.  74). 

HALE, ,  resolution,  79,  120  (No.  41 )  ; 

amendment,  123  (No.  82). 

Hall, ,  resolution,  29,  109  (No.  26). 

Hamlet,  James,  case,  43,  44,  126  (No.  43). 
Hannum,  Captain,  in  Ottoman  case,  40. 
Hanway,  Castner,  in  Christiana  case,  50, 

51- 

Harlan, ,  amendment,  120  (No.  51). 

Harris, ,  introduces  confiscation  bill, 


144 


Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Index. 


76;  confiscation  bill,  121  (No.  59),  122 
(Nos.  67,  71);   amendment,   121   (No. 

64). 
Hartford,  fugitive  harbored  in,  10 ;  treaty 

of,  ratified,  91    (No.    14) ;    controversy 

with  New  Netherlands,  124  (No.  i). 
Harvard  College,  Library  of,  129  (No.  2). 
Henderson  amendment,  123  (No.  82). 
Hepburne,  Judge,  in  Kennedy  case,  39. 
Higginson,  T.  W.,  in  Burns  case,  45,  46. 
Hilliard,  Mrs.  G.  S.,  harbors  a  fugitive, 

64. 
Hillyer,  ,  finality  resolution,  116  (No. 

37)- 
Hindman,    ,    proposition,    72 ;    joint 

resolution,  117  (No.  10). 
Holmes, ,  on  the  fugitive  slave  bill, 

22. 

Howard, ,  amendment,  123  (No.  82). 

Howe,  ,  repeal  bill,  83,  120  (No. 

49)- 

Hubbard, ,  on  repeal  bill,  84,  85 ;  res 
olution,  123  (No.  83). 

ILLINOIS,  no  full  personal  liberty  law 
in,  67. 

Immigration,  into  Missouri,  23. 

Impeachment,  ground  for,  69. 

Imprisonment  of  a  runaway,  56. 

Indented  Servants,     See  Servants. 

Indiana,  personal  liberty  law  in  (1824),  65, 
67. 

Indians,  received  fugitives  in  the  wilder 
ness,  i  ;  as  slaves,  2  ;  as  slave  hunters, 
8 ;  conferences  with,  8  ;  escapes  to,  9. 
See  Chickasaws,  Choctaws,  Creeks,  Del- 
awares,  Seminoles. 

Intercolonial  cases,  early  agreements  as  to 
fugitives,  1,2;  agreement  between  the 
Dutch  and  English,  7  ;  difficulty  of  ar 
ranging  regulations,  7;  first  contained 
in  Articles  of  Confederation,  7  ;  depend 
ent  upon  intercolonial  feeling,  9;  case 
of  escape  of  slaves,  n. 

Interferences  and  rescues,  38. 

International  cases,  earliest,  10;  relations 
unsettled,  9,  10;  regulations  under  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  12,  13. 

Interstate  relations,  affected  by  Prigg  de 
cision,  41. 


Iowa,  personal  liberty  laws  in,  67. 
Iredell,  on  fugitive  slave  clause,  15. 
Isaac,  case  of,  41,  124  (No.  24). 

JACKSON,  ,  resolution,  116  (No. 

36). 

Jager,  Cornells  Herperts  de,  escape  of 
servants  of,  6,  7. 

Jail,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  resolu 
tion  on,  80 ;  denied  to  fugitives,  So, 
8r,  no  (Nos.  27,  28).  See  District 
of  Columbia. 

Jails,  State,  not  to  be  used,  40, ;  denied  to 
fugitives,  47  ;  denial  constitutional,  70  ; 
use  forbidden,  69.  See  also  Personal 
Liberty  Bill. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  proposition,  13. 

John  case,  17,  124  (No.  11). 

Johnson,  on  committee,  17  ;  joint  resolu 
tion,  118  (Nos.  12,  27);  amendment, 
124  (No.  83). 

Johnson  Case,  128  (No.  60). 

Jones,  George,  case,  36,  37,  125  (No.  19). 

Julian,  George  W.,  repeal  bills,  83,  122 
(No.  76),  123  (No.  80)  ;  resolution,  120 
(No.  45). 

Jury  trial,  not  admitted,  7  ;  disuse  of,  66. 

KANSAS,  personal  liberty  laws  in,  67, 
70. 

Kellogg, ,  joint  resolution,  118   (Nos. 

19,  20,  21). 

Kennedy  case,  39,  126  (No.  35). 

Kentucky,  resolutions,  25;  petition  of 
Legislature,  28 ;  demands  extradition 
of  abettors  of  fugitives,  41  ;  contro 
versy  with  Ohio,  126  (No.  37). 

Kidnapping,  suggests  new  fugitive  slave 
law,  17;  from  1793  to  1850,  27  ;  in  bor 
der  States,  27 ;  character  of  cases, 
36;  enlists  sympathy,  60;  regulations 
against,  82. 

Kilgore,  resolution,  73,  118  (No.  n). 

King, ,  on  repeal  bill,  84. 

Kirk  case,  126  (No  33). 

Kline,  Marshal,  demands  assistance,  50, 

L'AMISTAD  case,  27. 
Latimer,  George,  case    of,   39,   125    (No. 
28)  ;  effect,  68 ;  daily  journal,  40. 


Harris  —  Negroes. 


145 


Leake, ,  joint  resolution,  117  (No.  9). 

Le  Screux,  slave  on,  n. 

Lewis  case,  127  (No.  54). 

Lewis,  Elijah,  prosecution  of,  50,  51,  127 
(No.  49). 

Liberator,  kidnapping  case  in,  82.  See 
Newspapers. 

Liberty,  love  of,  by  slaves,  54. 

Liberty  Party,  convention  of,  49. 

Libraries,  use  of,  129  (No.  2). 

Lincoln,  President,  preliminary  proclama 
tion,  77;  final  emancipation  procla 
mation,  77. 

List,  counsel  in  Shadrach  case,  47. 

Loring,  Ellis  Gray,  in  Shadrach  case,  47 ; 
Crafts  taken  to  house  of,  60. 

Louisiana,  escape  of  slaves  from,  23. 

Lovejoy,  bills,  78,  79,  119  (No.  35),  122 
(No.  66) ;  resolutions,  119  (No.  29),  120 
(No.  44)  ;  amendment,  119  (No.  38). 

MADISON,   on  fugitive   slave    clause, 

15- 
Maine,  Governor  of,  refuses  to  surrender 

fugitives     from    justice,    41  ;    personal 

liberty  law   in,  69. 

Malbronne,  Ensign  de,  loses  servant,  11. 
Mallory,  ,  on  Blair  bill,  79;  on  repeal, 

84- 

Manhattan,  escape  to,  6,  124  (No.  2). 

Mansfield,  Lord.     See  Somersett  case. 

Market  women,  on  Underground  Rail 
road,  63. 

Maryland,  regulations  on  fugitives,  3 ; 
offers  reward,  7 ;  letter  from,  to  New 
Netherlands,  10,  n  ;  fugitives  escape 
from,  10,  ii  ;  resolution,  24;  resolu 
tions  debated,  24,  107  (No.  18) ;  of 
fers  reward  for  Thomas  Garrett,  63  ; 
regulations  against  runaways,  90  (No. 
4),  91  (Nos.  n,  12),  93  (Nos.  26,  28), 
94  (No.  31),  95  (Nos.  38,  40). 

Mason,  of  Massachusetts,  on  the  fugitive 
slave  bill,  22. 

Mason,  of  Virginia,  fugitive  slave  bill,  29, 
30,  no  (No.  30)  ;  amendment,  29; 
argument,  31. 

Massachusetts  Bay,  regulation  against 
transportation  of  apprentices  and  ser 
vants,  99  (No.  63) ;  on  the  capture  of 


servants  in,  89  (No.  2) ;  regulation  of 
free  negroes,  98  (No.  53). 

Massachusetts  Colony,  first  law  as  to 
fugitives,  4 ;  in  the  New  England  Con 
federation,  7  ;  emancipation  in,  13  ;  first 
fugitive  slave  case  in,  35. 

Massachusetts  State,  Governor  of,  ad 
vised,  68  ;  personal  liberty  law,  66,  67, 
68;  no  recovery  of  fugitives  in,  71. 

May,  S.  J.,  in  "Jerry  "  case,  49. 

McClernand, ,  117  (No.  9). 

McHenry,  "Jerry,"  case,  48,  49,  127  (No. 

5')- 

McLanahan, ,  resolution,  115  (No.  32). 

Meade, ,  proposition,  29 ;  resolution, 

no  (No.  29). 

Meionaon,  mass  meetings  in,  45. 
Merrill,  Amos  B.,  in  Latimer  case,  39. 
Mexico,  as  a  place  of  refuge,  25. 
Michigan,   personal    liberty   laws   in,   67, 

70. 
Miller,  in  kidnapping  case,  51,  127  (No. 

SCO- 
Miner,  Jo,  advertisement  of,  80. 
Minnesota,  personal  liberty  law  in,  67. 
Missouri,    admission    of,    23 ;    Anderson 

case  in,  26 ;  Governor  of,  offers  reward 

for  John  Brown,  51. 
Missouri     Compromise,     fugitive     slave 

clause  in,  23,  107  (No.  16)  ;  period  of, 

23- 

Mob,  provisions  against,  31. 
Morgan,  Margaret.     See  Prigg  Case. 

Morrill, ,  resolution,  119  (No.  40). 

Morris,  cutter,  in  Burns  case,  46,  55. 
Morris, ,  substitute  reported,  83 ;   on 

repeal  bill,  85  ;  resolution,  117  (No.  3)  ; 

joint  resolution,  118  (No.  16). 
Morris,  John  B.,  demands  a  fugitive  slave, 

39- 

"  Moses."     See  Harriet  Tubman. 
Murray, ,  motion,  19. 

NALLE  CASE,  128  (No.  64). 

Nassau,  fugitives  in,  27. 

Negroes,  ignorance  of,  57;  regulation  of, 
100  (No.  65)  ;  against  escape  of,  103 
(No.  78)  ;  petition  of  a  soldier,  20  ; 
free,  how  affected,  21  ;  regulation  of, 
98  (No.  53).  See  also  Fugitives. 


or 


146 


Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Index. 


New  Amsterdam,  escape  of  servants 
from,  67  ;  trial  at,  9.  See  also  New 
Netherlands. 

New  England,  regulations  as  to  fugi 
tives,  4. 

New  England  Confederation,  composition 
of,  7,  8  ;  articles  of,  91  (No.  8). 

New  Hampshire,  legislation  in,  4,  99  (No. 
61)  ;  personal  liberty  laws  in,  67, 
69. 

New  Haven,  in  the  New  England  Con 
federation,  7. 

New  Jersey,  regulations  on  fugitives,  3, 
94  (No.  32),  95  (No.  39),  96  (No.  42)  ; 
sanctions  rendition,  67;  slaves,  98  (No. 
55)  ;  white  servants,  98  (No.  56). 

New  Netherlands,  legislation  in,  4 ;  on 
fugitive  slave  cases,  n  ;  regulations 
against  runaways,  89  (No.  i),  89,  90  (No. 
3),  90  (No.  5),  91  (Nos.  10,  14),  92  (No. 
19)  ;  Quakers,  93  (No.  29)  ;  contro 
versy  with  Hartford,  126  (No.  i).  See 
also  Dutch  Colonies. 

New  York,  regulation  on  fugitives,  8,  97 
(No.  50),  98  (No.  51),  99  (No.  59); 
Governor  of,  in  Solomon  Northrup 
case,  37,  38 ;  refusal  to  return  abettors 
of  fugitives,  41 ;  personal  liberty  laws, 
66,  69,  70;  slaves,  97  (No.  49);  pre 
vention  of  insurrections,  101  (No.  68); 
kidnapping  in,  82. 

Niblack, ,  resolution,  117  (No.  7). 

Nicholson,  on  committee,  20. 

Norfolk,  kidnapping  cases  in,  82,  128  ; 
(No.  68). 

OBERLIN  CASE,  38,  125  (No.  26). 

Oberlin-Wellington,  rescue,  49,  50,  128 
(No.  62). 

Officers,  return  of  fugitives  by  army  and 
navy,  121  (No.  53). 

Ohio,  fugitives  protected  in,  23  ;  refusal 
to  return  abettors  of  fugitives,  41  ;  per 
sonal  liberty  law,  67,  70. 

Olmsted,  F.  L.,  quoted,  56. 

"  Omnibus  Bill,"  fugitive  slave  provision 
in,  30. 

Ordinance  of  1787,  for  the  Northwest 
Territory,  13,  14;  confirmed,  16. 

Ottoman  case,  40,  126  (No.  34). 


PARKER,  THEODORE,  speaks  on 
Burns'  case,  45  ;  indicted  for  riot,  46 ; 
protects  William  and  Lucy  Crafts,  59, 
60. 

Parker,     William,    in     Christiana    case, 

50- 

Pass,  necessity  of,  55. 
Patrols,  duty  of,  55. 
Patroons,  runaways  from,  89  (No.  i). 
Peace  Convention,  amendment,  nS  (No. 

22). 

Pearl,  carries  fugitives,  42. 

Penalties  for  escape,  31  ;  for  violating 
personal  liberty  laws,  67. 

Pennsylvania,  emancipation  in,  13  ;  Gov 
ernor  of,  in  "John"  case,  17;  act  of, 
reported,  23,  107  (No.  17)  ;  fugitives 
abetted  in,  24 ;  personal  liberty  laws 
in,  66,  69 ;  regulation  of  servants,  97 
(No.  48)  ;  regulation  of  negroes,  100 
(No.  65) ;  harboring  of  fugitives,  103 
(No.  80) ;  case  in,  126  (No.  46). 

Pennsylvania  Society  for  the  Abolition  of 
Slavery,  efforts  in  behalf  of  "John," 
17  ;  petition  of,  21  ;  efforts  of,  28. 

Pensacola,  Walker  embarks  from,  42. 

Personal  Liberty  Laws,  passed,  28  ;  char 
acter  of,  65 ;  before  the  Prigg  decision, 
65 ;  between  the  Prigg  decision  and  the 
Second  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  66 ;  oc 
casioned  by  the  law  of  1850,  66,  67  ; 
change'  in  character,  66;  table  of,  67; 
distribution  among  States,  67 ;  report 
on,  68;  effect  of,  70,  102;  constitution 
ality  of,  70;  obstruction  by,  71  ;  repeal 
urged,  72  ;  resolution  against,  72  ; 
Saulsbury  substitute  on,  123  (No.  Si). 

Petition  of  North  Carolina  negroes,  19; 
of  free  negroes,  20  ;  of  a  free  colored 
so'dier,  20  ;  of  the  Pennsylvania  Aboli 
tion  Society  21  ;  from  the  Kentucky 
Legislature,  28  ;  to  remove  jailer  and 
sheriff  in  Latimer  case,  40 ;  for  an  amend 
ment  to  the  Constitution,  40;  for  a  new 
personal  liberty  law,  68. 

Philadelphia,  constitutional  convention 
sits  in,  14;  attempted  rescue  in,  39,  125 
(No.  22). 

Phillips,  Wendell,  speeches  on  Latimer 
case,  40;  addresses  mass  meeting,  45; 


New  Amsterdam  —  Rhode  Island. 


147 


speaks  on  Burns'  case,  45 ;  indicted 
for  riot,  46. 

Pierce,  Franklin,  President,  sends  execu 
tive  message,  48 ;  issues  proclamation, 
48. 

Pindall,  on  revision  of  the  fugitive  slave 
act.  21  ;  made  chairman  of  committee, 
21  ;  amendatory  bill,  106  (No.  10). 

Pine  Grove  Plantation,  probable  refuge, 
57,  66. 

Pinkney,  Gen.  C.  C.,  on  the  fugitive  slave 
clause,  14. 

Plymouth,  in  the  New  England  Confede 
ration,  7. 

Pomeroy, ,  on  confiscation  bill,  76. 

Porter, ,  amendment,  122  (No.  67). 

Potter,  R.  J.,  advertisement  by,  So. 

Powell, ,  on  District  of  Columbia  jail, 

81  ;  joint  resolution,  119  (No.  28); 
amendment,  120  (No.  51). 

Pratt, ,  amendment,  in  (No.  30). 

Priggs  vs.  Pennsylvania  case,  27,  28,  125 
(No.  18)  ;  consequences  of,  66  ;  extracts 
from,  108  (No.  22). 

Proclamation,  by  West  India  Company, 
10 ;  on  Shadrach  case,  48 ;  emanci 
pation,  77. 

Prosecutions,  carried  on,  42  ;  after 
"Jerry"  rescue,  49;  of  Oberlin- Well 
ington  rescuers,  50 ;  of  Wendell 
Phillips,  46. 

Protection  papers,  use  of,  58. 

Pugh,  George  H.,  joint  resolution,  118 
(No.  26). 

Purrington,  brig  William,  126  (No.  39). 

Purvis,  Robert,  connection  with  Under 
ground  Railroad,  63. 

QUAKERS,  arrange  station  on  the 
Underground  Railroad,  60 ;  fugitives 
hidden  by,  61 ;  refused  admision  to 
New  Netherlands,  93  (No.  29). 

Quincy,  Josiah,  account  of  first  fugitive 
slave  case  in  the  North,  35,  125  (No. 


RAIDS,  upon  plantations,  56. 
Rantoul,  Robert,  Jr.,  in  Sims  case,  44. 

Read, ,  on  committee,  17. 

Redemptioners,      described,     2  ;      cases 


of,  2 ;  case  of  running  away  with  ne 
groes,  3. 

Refuge,  place  of,  57. 

Rendition,  a  duty,  7.  See  also  Fugi 
tives. 

Rescue,  first  case  of,  35. 

Resolution,  by  Maryland  Legislature, 
23,  24  ;  on  relations  with  Canada,  25 ; 
Kentucky,  25;  on  fugitives  on  the 
high  seas,  26 ;  Giddings,  29 ;  against 
the  return  of  Latimer,  40 ;  to  base 
representation  on  free  persons,  40; 
Georgia  Legislature,  41  ;  on  arrests 
by  army  officers,  79  ;  Fitch,  116 
(No.  35);  Jackson,  116  (No.  36); 
Hillyer,  116  (No.  37);  Chase,  116 
(No.  38);  Cochrane's  joint,  117  (No. 
2)1  Morris,  117  (No.  3);  Leake,  117 
No.  4) ;  Cox,  117  (No.  5);  Stevenson, 

117  (No.  6);    Niblack,    117    (No.   7); 
English  joint,  117  (No.  8) ;  McClernand 
joint,  117  (No.  9);  Hindman,  117  (No. 
10);  Kilgore,  118  (No.  11);  Johnson's 
joint,   118   (Nos.   12,  27);   Crittenden's 
joint,  1 18  (No.  13);  Douglas's  joint,  liS 
(No.  14)  ;  Florence,  118  (Nos.  15,  18)  ; 
Morris's  joint,  118  (No.  16) ;  Kellogg's 
joint,  118  (Nos.  19,  20,  21) ;  Clarence's 
joint,  118  (No.  23)  ;  Crittenden's  joint, 

118  (No.   24);   Pugh's  joint,  118  (No. 
26)  ;    Powell's    joint,    119    (No.    28)  ; 
Lovejoy's,  119  (No.  29);    Wilson's  119 
(Nos.  32,  33),  120  (No.   47),  121  (No. 
55),  121  (No.  61);  Clark,  119  (No.  34); 
Sumner,  119  (No.  36);  Fessenden,  119 
(No.   38)  ;    Bingham,    119    (No.    39)'; 
Merrill's   confiscation   joint,    119   (No. 
40);  Hale,  120  (No.  41)  ;  Sumner,  120 
(No.  43),  122  (No.  74)  ;  Lovejoy,  120 
(No.  44) ;  Julian,  120  (No.  45) ;  Shank, 
120  (No.  46);   Colfax,  122  (No.   77); 
Hubbard's  repeal,  123  (No.  83). 

Revolution,  did  not  change  condition  of 
slave,  13. 

Reward,  offered  by  Missouri,  51  ;  by 
United  States,  52;  by  colonies,  7,  8. 

Rhode  Island  legislation,  4 ;  emanci 
pation,  13;  personal  liberty  law,  66, 
67,  69  ;  regulation  of  ferries  in,  98  (No. 
57). 


148 


Fugitive  Slaves  :  —  Index. 


Rice, ,  amendment,  121  (No.  53). 

Rice,  John,  kidnapped,  49. 

Rich,  on  the  fugitive  slave  bill,  21. 

Riker,  Richard,  in  Jones  case,  37. 

Riley, ,  United  States  commissioner, 

47- 

Rotch,  aids  escape,  6. 

Runaways,  regulations  against,  6,  7,  8; 
easily  regulated,  7  ;  the  habitual,  57 ; 
methods  pursued,  58 ;  harboring  upon 
a  ship,  58 ;  regulations  against,  89 
(Nos.  i,  3),  90  (Nos.  4,  7),  92  (No. 
T7)>  93  (Nos-  24,  25,  27),  94  (Nos.  31, 
33),  95  (No.  40),  98  (No.  52),  99  (No. 
61),  100  (No.  6);  entertainment  of, 
91  (No.  10),  92  (No.  16),  93  (No.  29), 
94  (No.  37),  102  (No.  73)  ;  second 
offence,  how  punished,  91  (No.  13)  ; 
hue  and  cry  after,  92  (No.  18);  from 
the  Dutch,  93  (No.  21)  ;  apprehension 
of,  93  (No.  22)  ;  English,  93  (No.  23)  ; 
in  Glocester,  93  (No.  24)  ;  apprehen 
sion  of,  95  (Nos.  35,  38) ;  capture  re 
warded,  95  (No.  37);  prevention  of, 
96  (No.  42);  to  Canada,  97,  98  (No. 
50) ;  trade  with,  inhibited,  97  (No.  47) ; 
against  ferriage  of,  98  (No.  57),  102 
(No.  4)  ;  minor,  99  (No.  61)  ;  pursuit 
of,  103  (No.  79). 
Russia,  Emperor  of,  arbitration  by,  25. 

SAULSBURY,  amendments,  120  (No. 

51),  121   (Nos.   53,   58),  122  (No.  70), 

123  (Nos.  Si,  82,  83). 
Savannah  Georgian,  advertisement  in,  57, 

66. 
Secrecy,  observed  by  fugitives,  63. 

Sedgwick, ,  on  committee,  17. 

Seizure,   of  North  Carolina  negroes,   19. 

See  also  Arrest,  Kidnapping  Cases. 
Seminoles,  steal  slaves,   24 ;   trouble,  25  ; 

United  States  claims  on,  108  (No.  19). 
Sergeant, ,  on  the  fugitive  slave  bill, 

22. 
Servants,  English,  93   (Nos.  25,   28) ;  an 

act  concerning,  99  (No.  60) ;  regulation 

of,  98  (No.  56),  101  (No.  70),  101  (No. 

7i)  ;  fugitive,  91    (No.  9),  92  (No.  19), 

93  (No.  21),  94  (No.  32),  95   (Nos.  39, 

41),  96  (No.  45),  100  (No.  67),  103  (No. 


78) ;  how  to  know  a,  92  (No.  20).    See 
also  Fugitives,  Runaways. 

Sewall,  Samuel  E.,  counsels  fugitives,  39, 
47- 

Seward,  W.  H.,  amendments,  29,  in 
(No.  30). 

Shadrach  case,  47,  48;  personal  liberty 
laws  tested,  68  ;  Clay's  resolution  on, 
115  (No.  33);  case,  127  (No.  48). 

Shank, ,  resolution,  120  (No.  46). 

Shanley  vs.  Haney  case,  124  (No.  8). 

Shaw,  Chief  Justice,  in  Latimer  case,  39. 

Shell,  O.  P.,  advertises  a  runaway,  56. 

Sheriff,  power  of,  31. 

Sherman,  John,  amendments,  86,  123 
(No.  82). 

Sherman,  Roger,  on  the  fugitive  slave 
clause,  14;  on  committee,  18. 

Sherwood,  Major,  case  of  servant  of,  78, 
128  (No.  67). 

Ship,  refuge  for  runaways,  58  ;  slave  on 
Brazilian,  126  (No.  36). 

Ship-masters,  Dutch,  rewarded,  93  (No. 
21). 

Sims,  Thomas  M.,  case,  44  ;  brigade, 
44;  courthouse  used  as  jail,  68;  case, 
126  (No.  44). 

Slaves,  conditions  of  life,  55 ;  Mother's 
Farewell,  extract  from,  54  ;  stealing  of, 
102  (No.  77)  ;  abolition  of  trade  in, 
21  ;  status  of,  in  England,  24 ;  ques 
tion  of  damages,  31  ;  must  wear  livery, 
55  ;  new  conditions  surround,  73 ; 
regulation  of,  97  (No.  49),  98  (Nos. 
54,  55),  99,  ioo  (Nos.  60,  64),  100 
(No.  67),  101  (No.  70),  101,  102  (Nos. 
71,  72)  ;  extradition  of,  108  (No.  21); 
status  on  the  high  seas,  108  (No.  20), 
109  (No.  23)  ;  of  the  Dutch,  escape  to 
the  English,  7  ;  escape  to  the  forest,  7, 
8  ;  of  rebels,  resolutions  on,  73 ;  bill  to 
free,  120  (No.  52). 

Slaveholder,  demand  for  legislation,  14; 
basis  of,  argued,  16;  complaints  of, 
20. 

Slave-hunters,    how  received,  62 ;    insur 
rections  to  prevent,  101  (No.  68). 
Slavery,   condition   in   the   colonies,    n  ; 
interests  advanced,  16;  justification  of, 
1 6 ;     extinction    of,    35  ;    attacked    in 


Rice  —  United  Colonies. 


149 


Congress,  74 ;  abolition  in  the  District 

of  Columbia,  82,  121,  122  (Nos.  62,  65) ; 

studies  of  the  institution  of,  129  (No. 

3)  ;  studies  of    colonial,   129  (No.  3)  ; 

speeches  upon,  131  (No.  8). 

Smith, ,  on  fugitive  slave  law,  21,  22. 

Smith,  Gerrit,  in  Anderson  case,  26 ;   in 

"  Jerry  "  rescue,  49. 
Smithburg  case,  126  (No.  32). 
Society  for  the  Abolition  of  Slavery.    See 

Pennsylvania. 

Somersett  case,  12,  124  (No.  9). 
Soule, ,  on  the  fugitive  slave  bill,  31, 

32. 

South  Bend  Case,  126  (No.  38). 

South  Carolina,  regulations  on  fugitives, 
3 ;  difficulty  in  recovering  fugitives,  8 ; 
constitutional  convention  in,  14  ;  regula 
tions  against  runaways,  96  (No.  43),  97 
(No.  47),  99,  100  (Nos.  58,  62,  64); 
regulation  of  slaves,  98  (No.  54),  100 
(No.  64),ioi  (No.  69),  102  (No.  77). 

Southern  States,  complain  of  Under 
ground  Railroad,  64. 

Spalding, ,  repeal  bill,  83,  123  (No. 

80). 

Spanish  colonies,  interval  of  unpopulated 
country  south,  i. 

Sprague,  E.,  46. 

State  Jails.     See  Jails. 

State  Officers,  power  discussed,  20,  22 ; 
forfeiture  of  office,  69 ;  forbidden  to 
act,  66,  69. 

St.  Augustine,  escapes  to,  8. 

St.  Luc,  Sieur  de  la  Corne,  negro  servant 
of,  n. 

Staunton,  General,  in  Sherwood  case,  78, 
94. 

Stevens,  ,  repeal  bill,  83,  123  (No. 

80);  motion  of,  in  (No.  30). 

Stevenson, ,  resolution,  117  (No.  6). 

Stewart, .     See  Somersett  Case. 

Story,  Justice,  decision  in  Prigg  case,  28. 

Stuyvesant,  Governor,  in  fugitive  slave 
case,  10. 

Sumner,  Charles,  in  Drayton  case,  42 ; 
resolutions,  79  ;  repeal  bills,  83,  85,  124 
(No.  80),  resolutions,  119  (No.  36), 
120  (No.  43),  120  (No.  74);  amend 
ment,  121  (No.  57). 


Suttle,  Charles  F.,  in  Burns  case,  45. 
Swain,  John,  suit  for  slave,  5. 
Swamps,  as  a  refuge,  56,  57. 
Swan,  Captain,  in  Wisdom  case,  78. 
Swedish    colonies,    along    the   coast,   I ; 

regulations  on  fugitives,  2. 
Syracuse,  "Jerry"  rescue  in,  48. 

TAYLOR, ,  on  committee,  18. 

Ten  Eyck,  ,  amendment,  120  (No. 

51)  ;  report  of,  123  (No.  80). 

Thomas  case,  126  (No.  30). 

Thompson, ,  case,  125  (No.  27). 

Treaty,  of  Hartferd,  fugitive  slave  clause 
in,  91  (No.  14);  of  1783,  104  (No.  2); 
with  Indian  tribes,  12,  13,  16,  17,  24, 
104  (Nos.  i,  3,  5),  105  (No.  8),  106  (Nos. 
u,  12),  108  (No.  19);  of  Ghent,  24, 
106  (No.  12);  proposed  with  Great 
Britain,  25. 

Tremont  Temple,  mass  meetings  in,  45. 

Trial,  by  jury,  not  admitted,  in  first  act, 
19;  objected  to,  22;  denied,  31;  pro 
posed,  73;  resolution  demanding,  122 
(No.  77). 

Trumbull,  confiscation  bill,  75,  119  (Nos. 
30,  37);  bill,  120  (No.  52);  amend 
ments,  119  (No.  31),  121  (No.  57), 
122  (No.  78). 

Tubman,  Harriet,  account  of,  62. 

Tukey,  Marshal,  in  Sims  case,  44. 

Turc,  escape  of,  9. 

UNDERGROUND  RAILROAD,  be 
ginnings  of,  27  ;  how  regarded  by 
the  South,  31  ;  methods  south  of  the 
Ohio,  47  ;  use  of,  by  John  Brown,  51 ; 
incident  at,  54;  description  of,  60; 
rise  and  growth,  60,  61  ;  stations  on, 
described,  61  ;  methods  pursued,  61  ; 
extent  of  system,  60,  61  ;  origin  of 
name,  6r;  in  the  South,  61  ;  in  the 
North,  61  ;  colored  agents  on,  61,  62  ; 
prosecution  of  agents,  63  ;  formal 
organization,  63  ;  market  women  as 
helpers,  63. 

Underwood,  ,  amendment,  in  (No. 

30). 

United  Colonies,  treaty  with  New  Nether 
lands,  91  (No.  14). 


ISO 


Fugitive  Slaves: — Index. 


United  States,  reward  offered  for  John 
Brown,  51,  52 ;  in  Seminole  trouble, 
24 ;  in  Anderson  case,  26.  See  also 
Acts,  Bills,  Fugitives,  Resolutions 
Runaways. 

United  States  Hotel,  slave  hunters  at,  60 
69. 

VALLANDIGHAM,  C.  L.,  amend 
ment,  118  (No.  25). 

Van  Zandt,  aids  fugitive,  42,  125  (No. 
25)- 

Vermont,  personal  liberty  laws  in,  66,  67, 
69. 

Vigilance  committee  organized,  38  ;  in 
"  Jerry  "  rescue,  48. 

Villeinage,  ceased  in  England,  n. 

Virginia,  regulations  on  fugitives,  3;  re 
wards  the  recovery  of  a  fugitive,  7,  8  ; 
slaves  escape,  8  ;  constitutional  conven 
tion  in,  15;  Governor  of,  action  in 
"John"  case,  17;  demands  arrest  of 
abettors  of  a  fugitive,  41 ;  regulation 
against  the  entertainment  of  fugitives, 
90  (No.  6);  regulations  against  run 
aways,  90  (No.  7),  91  (No.  13),  92 
(Nos  1 6,  17,  18,  20),  93  (Nos.  22,  25, 
27,  30),  94  (No.  33),  95  (Nos.  35,  37), 
98  (No.  52) ;  reward  for  the  capture  of 
runaways,  93  (No.  21),  95  (No.  36) ;  on 
English  runaways,  93  ( Xo.  22);  in 
county  of  Glocester,  93  (No.  24)  ;  repeal 
law,  96  (No.  44) ;  amends  law,  96  (No. 
48)  ;  amended,  100  (No.  66) ;  against 
ferriage  of  runaways,  102  (No.  74). 

WALKER,  JONATHAN,   aids    fugi 
tives,  42,  126  (No.  31). 
Walton, ,  amendment,  122  (Nos.  67, 

74). 

Washington,  President,  asks  for  the  re 
turn  of  a  fugitive,  35,  125  (No.  13). 

Washington  case,  38,  126  (No.  42). 


Washington,  jail,  resolutions  on,  119  (Nos. 
32,  34,  38>  39),  121  (No.  55).  See  also 
Jail. 

Webster,  Daniel,  in  Creole  case,  27 ; 
introduces  bill,  in  (No.  30). 

Wellington.     See  Oberlin-Wellington. 

West  India  Company,  regulation  of,  2; 
execution  of  regulation  6,  7  ;  ordinance 
of,  89  (No.  i). 

Whipping,  motive  for  flight,  54. 

Whipple, ,  in  kidnapping  case,  35,  36. 

White, ,  on  committee,  17. 

White  slaves.  See  Redemptioners,  Ser 
vants. 

Whitman, ,  on  the  fugitive  slave  bill 

Williams  case,  125  (No.  17). 
Williamson  case,  128  (No.  59). 
Wilkins,  Frederick.     See  Shadrach. 
Wilson, ,  on  Butler's  proposition,  14, 

'5- 
Wilson,  Henry,  on  confiscation,  75  ;  bills, 

82,    120    (Nos.    42,  48),  121   (Nos.  54, 

56);  resolutions,  79,80,  119    (Nos.  32, 

33),  120  (No.  47),  122  (Nos.    55,  61); 

amendment,    123  (No.  71). 

Winthrop, ,  amendment,  in  (No.  30). 

Winthrop,    Governor    John,    in    fugitive 

slave  case,  10,  n. 
Wisconsin,  personal  liberty  laws  in,   67, 

70;  Supreme  Court  decision,  71. 
Wisdom  case,  78,  128  (No.  66). 
Woodbridge    resolutions,    25,    108    (No. 

21). 

Woods,  as  a  refuge,  i,  56. 

Wright, ,  presents  Maryland  Resolu 
tion,  24. 

Writ,  of  habeas  corpus,  in  Somersett 
case,  12;  allowed,  22;  advisability  of, 
20,  22  ;  refused,  26 ;  issued,  38,  39  ; 
of  personal  replevin,  sworn  out,  39. 

YULEE,  on  the  fugitive  slave  law,  32. 


Rl 

I< 

LC 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 


R  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Stat.cn 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
.2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

/C-IQ\  642-6753 
.1  year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 

books  to  NRLF 

.  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made 
4  days  prior  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPEDBELOW 


DD20   15M  4-02 
FOR/V\  INU.   UUO 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


BODOTlbQS? 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


